Biological Resources Report
Noyo Center for Marine Sciences Laboneatory
Fort Bragg, Mendocino County, California
Prepared for: Prepared by:
Noyo Center for Marine Science
P.O. Box 1321
Fort Bragg, CA 95437
Attn: Sheila Semans
[email protected]
May 2024
WRA Project # 340124
WRA, Inc.
5341 Old Redwood Highway
Petaluma, CA 95432
Attn: Rhiannon Korhummel
[email protected]
[Page left intentionally blank]
i
Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................1
1.1 Previous Biological Assessment...............................................................................1
2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND.........................................................................................1
2.1 Federal and State Regulatory Setting ......................................................................1
2.1.1 Sensitive Land Cover Types................................................................................1
2.1.2 Special-status Species.........................................................................................3
2.2 City of Fort Bragg Regulatory Setting........................................................................4
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING ...........................................................................................8
3.1 Topography and Soils................................................................................................9
3.2 Climate and Hydrology..............................................................................................9
3.3 Land Cover and Land Use .......................................................................................10
4.0 ASSESSMENT METHODS ..............................................................................................10
4.1 Land Cover Types ....................................................................................................11
4.1.1 Terrestrial Land Cover Types ...........................................................................11
4.1.2 Aquatic Resources.............................................................................................11
4.2 Special-status Species.............................................................................................12
4.2.1 General Assessment..........................................................................................12
4.2.2 Special-status Plants........................................................................................13
4.2.3 Special-status Wildlife......................................................................................13
4.2.4 Critical Habitat, Essential Fish Habitat, and Wildlife Corridors.....................14
5.0 ASSESSMENT RESULTS ................................................................................................14
5.1 Land Cover Types ....................................................................................................14
5.1.1 Terrestrial Land Cover Types ...........................................................................14
5.1.2 Aquatic Resources.............................................................................................15
5.2 Special-status Species.............................................................................................16
5.2.1 Special-status Plant Species............................................................................16
5.2.2 Special-status Wildlife Species ........................................................................18 Species with Potential to Occur..................................................................................18
5.2.3 Critical Habitat, Essential Fish Habitat, and Wildlife Corridors.....................19
6.0 project analysis .............................................................................................................19
6.1 Proposed Project......................................................................................................19
6.2 Alternatives Analysis.................................................................................................20
6.3 Buffer Analysis .........................................................................................................21
7.0 Recommendations.........................................................................................................26
7.1 Land Cover Types ....................................................................................................26
7.1.1 Terrestrial Land Cover Types ...........................................................................26
7.1.2 Aquatic Resources.............................................................................................27
7.2 Special-status Species.............................................................................................28
7.2.1 Special-status Plants........................................................................................28
7.2.2 Special-status Wildlife......................................................................................28
7.2.3 Wildlife Movement............................................................................................28
8.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................29 ii
List of Tables
Table 1. Alternatives Analysis Summary.........................................................................21 Table 2. Buffer Impacts..................................................................................................22 Table 3. Reduced Buffer Analysis ...................................................................................23 List of Appendices
Appendix A – Figures
Appendix B – Observed Species List
Appendix C – Special-Status Species Potentials Tables
Appendix D – Representative Photographs
Appendix E – Antecedent Precipitation Tool Analysis
Appendix F – Wetland Data Forms
Appendix G – Statement of Qualifications
List of Preparers
Matt Richmond – Principal-in-Charge
Rhiannon Korhummel – Plant Biologist
Michael Rochelle – GIS Analyst
Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
1.0 INTRODUCTION
On March 31, 2024, WRA, Inc. (WRA) performed an assessment of biological resources at APN 018-43-015 Jere Melo Lane, Fort Bragg, CA (hereafter Study Area) (Figure 1, Appendix A). The purpose of this study was to gather the information necessary to complete biological resources report under the City of Fort Bragg Coastal Use and Development Code Section 17.50.050(B).
This report provides detailed information on the presence, or potential presence of environmentally sensitive habitat area (ESHA) and other biological resources. This report describes the results of the site visit, which assessed the Study Area for (1) the presence of sensitive land cover types, (2) the potential for land cover types on the site to support specialstatus plant and wildlife species, and (3) the presence of any other sensitive natural resources protected by local, state, or federal laws and regulations. Overall, these sensitive biological resources are considered ESHA under the California Coastal Act (CCA). If observed, specialstatus species observed during the site assessment were documented and their presence is discussed herein. Specific findings on the habitat suitability or presence of special-status species or sensitive habitats may require that protocol-level surveys or other studies be conducted.
This report is based on information available at the time of the assessment and on-site conditions that were observed on the date the site was visited.
1.1 Previous Biological Assessment
The Study Area has been included in many biological assessments across the years, including 2005, 2009, 2010, and 2013 (WRA 2005, WRA 2009, WRA 2010, WRA 2013). The most recent assessments were in support of the Fort Bragg Coastal Trail during 2010 and in 2013. Results of each of the assessments determined no ESHA, including special-status species or sensitive land cover types (i.e., native grassland or aquatic resources) to be present in the Study Area.
2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND
This report is intended to facilitate conformance with the standards outlined in the City of Fort Bragg CDP application filing requirements (Section 17.71.045(D)(4)) and 17.50.050). In addition to the requirements of the City of Fort Bragg, development may also be subject to several federal and state regulations designed to protect sensitive natural resources. Applicable regulations that may apply to development are described below.
2.1 Federal and State Regulatory Setting
2.1.1 Sensitive Land Cover Types
Land cover types are herein defined as those areas of a particular vegetation type, soil or bedrock formation, aquatic features, and/or other distinct phenomenon. Typically, land cover types have identifiable boundaries that can be delineated based on changes in plant assemblages, soil or rock types, soil surface or near-surface hydroperiod, anthropogenic or natural disturbance, topography, elevation, etc. Many land cover types are not considered sensitive or otherwise protected under the environmental regulations discussed here. However, Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
these land cover types typically provide essential ecological and biological functions for plants and wildlife, including, frequently, special-status species. Those land cover types that are considered or protected under one or more environmental regulations are discussed below.
Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas: The California Coastal Act Section 30107.5 defines ESHAs as "any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments." Coastal Act Section 30240 protects ESHAs from “significant disruption of habitat values” limits allowable land uses within ESHAs, and requires adjacent uses to be designed to be compatible with habitat benefits provided by ESHAs. The Coastal Act includes wetlands as ESHAs, but does not specifically define every vegetation community defined as an ESHA. Instead, the California Coastal Commission (CCC) often delegates the responsibility for administering the California Coastal Act to local municipalities through the approval of Local Coastal Programs (LCPs). Many LCPs provide more specific lists of features that are considered ESHAs. More information about ESHAs defined by the City Coastal Land Use and Development Code is provided in Section 2.2 below.
Waters of the United States: The United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) regulates “Waters of the United States” under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Waters of the United States are defined in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) as waters susceptible to use in commerce, including interstate waters and wetlands, all other waters (intrastate waterbodies, including wetlands), and their tributaries (33 CFR 328.3). Potential wetland areas, according to the three criteria used to delineate wetlands as defined in the Corps Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), are identified by the presence of (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology. Areas that are inundated at a sufficient depth and for a sufficient duration to exclude growth of hydrophytic vegetation are subject to Section 404 jurisdiction as “other waters” and are often characterized by an ordinary high water mark (OHWM). Other waters, for example, generally include lakes, rivers, and streams. The placement of fill material into Waters of the United States generally requires an individual or nationwide permit from the Corps under Section 404 of the CWA. Water of the US are also considered ESHA under the City Coastal Land Use and Development Code.
Waters of the State: The term “Waters of the State” is defined by the Porter-Cologne Act as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) protects all waters in its regulatory scope and has special responsibility for wetlands, riparian areas, and headwaters. These waterbodies have high resource value, are vulnerable to filling, and are not systematically protected by other programs. RWQCB jurisdiction includes “isolated” wetlands and waters that may not be regulated by the Corps under Section 404. Waters of the State are regulated by the RWQCB under the State Water Quality Certification Program which regulates discharges of fill and dredged material under Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. Projects that require a Corps permit, or fall under other federal jurisdiction, and have the potential to impact Waters of the State, are required to comply with the terms of the Water Quality Certification determination. If a project does not require a federal permit, but does involve dredge or fill activities that may result in a discharge to Waters of the State, the RWQCB has the option to regulate the dredge and fill activities under its state authority in the form of Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
Waste Discharge Requirements. Waters of the State are also considered ESHA under the City Coastal Land Use and Development Code.
Streams, Lakes, and Riparian Habitat: Streams and lakes, as habitat for fish and wildlife species, are subject to jurisdiction by CDFW under Sections 1600-1616 of California Fish and Game Code (CFGC). Alterations to or work within or adjacent to streambeds or lakes generally require a 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement. The term “stream”, which includes creeks and rivers, is defined in the California Code of Regulations (CCR) as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life [including] watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation” (14 CCR 1.72). In addition, the term “stream” can include ephemeral streams, dry washes, watercourses with subsurface flows, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife (CDFG 1994). “Riparian” is defined as “on, or pertaining to, the banks of a stream.” Riparian vegetation is defined as “vegetation which occurs in and/or adjacent to a stream and is dependent on, and occurs because of, the stream itself” (CDFG 1994). Removal of riparian vegetation also requires a Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW. These features are also considered ESHA under the City Coastal Land Use and Development Code.
Sensitive Natural Communities: Sensitive natural communities not discussed above include habitats that fulfill special functions or have special values. Natural communities considered sensitive are those identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the CDFW.
CDFW ranks sensitive communities as "threatened" or "very threatened" (CDFG 2010, CDFW 2018a) and keeps records of their occurrences in its California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2018a). CNDDB vegetation alliances are ranked 1 through 5 based on NatureServe's (2018) methodology, with those alliances ranked globally (G) or statewide (S) as 1 through 3 considered sensitive. Impacts to sensitive natural communities identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations or those identified by the CDFW or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) must be considered and evaluated under CEQA (CCR Title 14, Div. 6, Chap. 3, Appendix G). Such natural communities are also considered ESHA under the City Coastal Land Use and Development Code.
2.1.2 Special-status Species
Plants: Special-status plants include taxa that have been listed as endangered or threatened, or are formal candidates for such listing, under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and/or California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The California Native Plant Protection Act (CNPPA) lists 64 “rare” or “endangered” and prevents “take”, with few exceptions, of these species. Plant species on the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare and Endangered Plant Inventory (Inventory) with California Rare Plant Ranks (Rank) of 1, and 2 are also considered specialstatus plant species and must be considered under CEQA and the City Coastal Land Use and Development Code. Rank 3 and 4 species are typically only afforded protection under CEQA and the City Coastal Land Use and Development Code when such species are particularly unique to the locale (e.g., range limit, low abundance/low frequency, limited habitat) or are otherwise considered locally rare. As such, these species are typically not considered ESHA and not included in the assessment.
Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
Wildlife: As with plants, special-status wildlife includes species/taxa that have been listed or are formal candidates for such under ESA and/or CESA. The federal Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act provides relatively broad protections to both of North America’s eagle species (bald [Haliaeetus leucocephalus] and golden eagle [Aquila chrysaetos)] that in some regards are similar to those provided by ESA. The CFGC designates some species as Fully Protected (SFP), which indicates that take of that species cannot be authorized through a state permit.
Additionally, CDFW Species of Special Concern (species that face extirpation in California if current population and habitat trends continue) are given special consideration under CEQA and the City Coastal Land Use and Development Code and are therefore considered special-status species. In addition to regulations for special-status species, most native birds in the United States, including non-status species, have baseline legal protections under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and CFGC, i.e., sections 3503, 3503.5 and 3513. Under these laws/codes, the intentional harm or collection of adult birds as well as the intentional collection or destruction of active nests, eggs, and young is illegal; nesting birds are considered ESHA under the City Coastal Land Use and Development Code. For bat species, the Western Bat Working Group (WBWG) designates conservation status for species of bats, and those with a high or medium-high priority are typically given special consideration under CEQA and are also considered ESHA under the City Coastal Land Use and Development Code.
Critical Habitat, Essential Fish Habitat, and Wildlife Corridors: Critical habitat is a term defined in the ESA as a specific and formally-designated geographic area that contains features essential for the conservation of a threatened or endangered species and that may require special management and protection. The ESA requires federal agencies to consult with the USFWS to conserve listed species on their lands and to ensure that any activities or projects they fund, authorize, or carry out will not jeopardize the survival of a threatened or endangered species. In consultation for those species with critical habitat, federal agencies must also ensure that their activities or projects do not adversely modify critical habitat to the point that it will no longer aid in the species’ recovery. Note that designated critical habitat areas that are currently unoccupied by the species but which are deemed necessary for the species’ recovery are also protected by the prohibition against adverse modification. Such areas are also considered ESHA under the City Coastal Land Use and Development Code.
The Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) provides for conservation and management of fishery resources in the U.S. This Act establishes a national program intended to prevent overfishing, rebuild overfished stocks, ensure conservation, and facilitate long-term protection through the establishment of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH).
EFH consists of aquatic areas that contain habitat essential to the long-term survival and health of fisheries, which may include the water column, certain bottom types, vegetation (e.g. eelgrass (Zostera spp.)), or complex structures such as oyster beds. Any federal agency that authorizes, funds, or undertakes action that may adversely affect EFH is required to consult with NMFS.
Movement and migratory corridors for native wildlife (including aquatic corridors) as well as wildlife nursery sites are given special consideration under CEQA and the City Coastal Land Use and Development Code.
2.2 City of Fort Bragg Regulatory Setting
City of Fort Bragg and the California Coastal Act (CCA) defines an ESHA as follows:
Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
Environmentally sensitive habitat area’ means any area in which plant or animal life or their habitats are either rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and which could be easily disturbed or degraded by human activities and developments.
Additionally, the City Coastal Land Use and Development Code cites:
Protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas is one of the essential aspects of the Coastal Act. Fort Bragg has several environmentally sensitive habitat areas including, but not limited to, portions of coastal bluffs, biologically rich tide pools, nesting grounds, kelp beds, wetlands, riparian habitats, and rare, threatened, or endangered plants or plant communities.
The City Coastal Land Use and Development Code and California Coastal Commission (CCC) Guidelines contain definitions for specific types of ESHAs, including: wetlands, estuaries, streams and rivers, lakes, open coastal waters and coastal waters, riparian habitats, other resource areas, and special-status species and their habitats. For the purposes of this report, WRA has taken into consideration any areas that may meet the definition of ESHA as defined by the CCA, CCC guidelines, or the City Coastal Land Use and Development Code.
The City Coastal Land Use and Development Code outlines the following when determining an ESHA:
Policy OS-1.2: Determination of ESHA. The determination of what constitutes ESHA shall not be limited by what is mapped and not all parcels that are mapped necessarily contain ESHA. Map 0S-1 serves to identify those general areas known to potentially contain ESHA and for which a biological report is required consistent with Policy OS-1.7 to substantiate the presence or absence of ESHA on any particular parcel. Any area not designated on LUP Map OS-1 that meets the ESHA definition is ESHA and shall be accorded all the protection provided for ESHA in the LCP. All habitat maps shall include a note that states that “the maps may be updated as appropriate and may not include all areas that constitute ESHA.” The following areas shall be considered ESHA:
• Any habitat area that is rare or especially valuable because of their special nature or role in an ecosystem and is easily degraded or disturbed by human activities or developments.
• Any habitat area or animal species designated as rare, threatened, or endangered under State or Federal Law.
• Any habitat area of species designated as Fully Protected or Species of Special Concern under State law or regulations.
• Any habitat area of plant species for which there is compelling evidence of rarity, for example, those designated 1B (Rare or endangered in California and elsewhere) or 2 (rare, threatened or endangered in California but more common elsewhere) by the California Native Plant Society.
The following definitions guided the assessment of potential ESHA observed in the Study Area:
Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
Wetlands: The CCA and City Coastal Land Use and Development Code define wetlands as:
Wetland means lands within the Coastal Zone which may be covered periodically or permanently with shallow water and include saltwater marshes, freshwater marshes, open or closed brackish water marshes, swamps, mudflats, and fens.
Public Resources Code Section 30121
CCC Administrative Regulations (Section 13577 (b)) provide a more explicit definition:
Wetlands are lands where the water table is at, near, or above the land surface long enough to promote the formation of hydric soils or to support the growth of hydrophytes, and shall also include those types of wetlands where vegetation is lacking and soil is poorly developed or absent as a result of frequent or drastic fluctuations of surface water levels, wave action, water flow, turbidity or high concentrations of salt or other substance in the substrate. Such wetlands can be recognized by the presence of surface water or saturated substrate at some time during each year and their location within, or adjacent to, vegetated wetlands or deepwater habitats.
The CCC considers this definition as requiring the observation of one diagnostic feature of a wetland, such as wetland hydrology, dominance by wetland vegetation (hydrophytes), or presence of hydric soils, as a basis for asserting jurisdiction under the CCA.
In addition to the above definition, the Statewide Interpretive Guidelines for Identifying and Mapping Wetlands and Other Wet Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Areas (CCC 1981) provide technical criteria for use in identifying and delineating wetlands and other ESHAs within the Coastal Zone. The technical criteria presented in the guidelines are based on the CCA definition and indicate that wetland hydrology is the most important parameter for determining a wetland, recognizing that:
. . . the single feature that most wetlands share is soil or substrata that is at least periodically saturated with or covered by water, and this is the feature used to describe wetlands in the Coastal Act. The water creates severe physiological problems for all plants and animals except those that are adapted for life in water or in saturated soil, and therefore only plants adapted to these wet conditions (hydrophytes) could thrive in these wet (hydric) soils. Thus, the presence or absence of hydrophytes and hydric soils make excellent physical parameters upon which to judge the existence of wetland habitat areas for the purposes of the Coastal Act, but they are not the sole criteria.
The Technical Criteria requires that saturation of soil in a wetland must be at or near the surface continuously for a period of time. The meaning of "at or near the surface" generally is considered to be approximately one-foot from the surface or less (the root zone), and the saturation must be continuously present for a period of time (generally more than two weeks) in order to create the necessary soil reduction (anaerobic) processes that create wetland conditions. For example, water from rain during a storm that causes saturation near the surface but then evaporates or Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
infiltrates to 18 inches or deeper below the surface shortly after the storm does not meet the generally accepted criteria for wetland hydrology.
The presence of wetland classified plants or the presence of hydric soils (generally referred to as the "one parameter approach") can be used to identify an area as a wetland in the Coastal Zone. There is a correlation between the presence of wetland plants, wetland hydrology, and/or hydric soils occurring together, especially in natural undisturbed areas, and in many cases where one of these parameters is found (e.g., wetland plants), the other parameters will also occur. But there are situations which can result in the presence of wetland classified plants without wetland conditions, and these areas are not wetlands. Where these conditions occur, the delineation study must carefully scrutinize whether the wetland classified plants present are growing as hydrophytes, reducing (anaerobic) conditions caused by the presence of wetland hydrology, or for some other (non-wetland) reason. Examples may include wetland-classified plants which are also salt-tolerant (e.g., alkali heath) that may be responding to either wetland conditions or saline soil conditions, but not necessarily both, and deep-rooted trees (e.g., willows) which are able to tap into deep groundwater sources and can grow in dry surface soils, but are also found in wetland conditions where surface water is present.
Hydric soils can also occur in upland areas, especially in areas where historic disturbances may have exposed substratum, or in densely vegetated grasslands (Mollisols). Similarly, the delineation must determine if the hydric soil indicators are the result of frequent anaerobic conditions or of non-wetland conditions.
Riparian Habitats and Streams, Rivers, and Anadromous Fish Habitat: The CCA and City Coastal Land Use and Development Code define riparian habitats as follows:
A riparian habitat is an area of riparian vegetation. This vegetation is an association of plant species which grows adjacent to freshwater watercourses, including perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, and other bodies of freshwater.
The Statewide Interpretive Guidelines (CCC 1981) state:
For the purpose of interpreting Coastal Act policies, another important distinction is between "wetland" and "riparian habitat." While the Service's classification system includes riparian areas as a kind of wetland, the intent of the Coastal Act was to distinguish these two areas. "Riparian habitat" in the Coastal Act refers to riparian vegetation and the animal species that require or utilize these plants. The geographic extent of a riparian habitat would be the extent of the riparian vegetation. . . . Unfortunately, a complete and universally acceptable definition of riparian vegetation has not yet been developed, so determining the geographic extent of such vegetation is rather difficult. The special case of determining consistent boundaries of riparian vegetation along watercourses throughout California is particularly difficult. In Southern California these boundaries are usually obvious; the riparian vegetation grows immediately adjacent to watercourses and only extends a short distance away from the watercourse. . .
Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
. . . For the purposes of this guideline, riparian vegetation is defined as that association of plant species which grows adjacent to freshwater watercourses, including perennial and intermittent streams, lakes, and other freshwater bodies. Riparian plant species and wetland plant species either require or tolerate a higher level of soil moisture than dryer upland vegetation, and are therefore generally considered hydrophytic. However, riparian vegetation may be distinguished from wetland vegetation by the different kinds of plant species. . .
The guidelines include a list of representative riparian plants that are meant to help distinguish wetland areas from riparian areas. Therefore, under the Coastal Act, riparian areas do not have to be wetlands, and are determined based primarily on vegetation and that vegetation's ability to provide habitat for animal species.
The CCA and City Coastal Land Use and Development Code define Streams, Rivers and Anadromous Fish habitats as follows:
A stream or a river is a natural watercourse as designated by a solid line or dash and three dots symbol shown on the United States Geological Survey map most recently published, or any well-defined channel with distinguishable bed and bank that shows evidence of having contained flowing water as indicated by scour or deposit of rock, sand, gravel, soil, or debris.
Freshwater streams used as migration corridor or spawning or nursery habitat by fish, such as salmon and steelhead trout, that live most of their adult lives in saltwater.
Special-status Species: Special-status species and their habitats are defined as ESHA by the CCA and City Coastal Land Use and Development Code. Special-status species include those species as defined in Section 2.1 above.
Natural Communities and Other ESHA: The CCA and City Coastal Land Use and Development Code define other resource areas as follows:
“Other designated resource areas include: State parks and reserves, underwater parks and reserves, areas of special biological significance, natural areas, special treatment areas, fishing access points, areas of special biological importance, significant California ecosystems, and coastal marine ecosystems.”
Natural communities include those species as defined in Section 2.1 above.
3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The 3.94-acre Study Area is a portion of a larger 11-acre parcel located on the former GeorgiaPacific Mill site in the City of Fort Bragg. Detailed descriptions of the local setting are below.
Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
3.1 Topography and Soils
The Study Area is situated on an historic marine terrace; as such the topography is relatively flat, with a slight slope to the northwest. The Soil Survey of Mendocino County, Western Part (USDA 2006) indicates that the Study Area contains one mapping unit: Urban Land (Figure 2).
This mapping unit is described below.
Urban Land: This mapping unit is on marine terraces where 50 percent of the land is covered by impervious surfaces and about 25 percent consists of soils that have been altered by cutting, filing, and grading for development. Native soils make up small portions of Urban Land.
Drainage, permeability, surface runoff, and available water capacity are extremely variable (USDA 2006). Within the Study Area, Urban Land is mapped as 75 percent Urban Land and a mix of several native soils for the remaining 25 percent. (CSRL 2024).
3.2 Climate and Hydrology
The Study Area is located in the coastal fog belt of Mendocino County. Average annual precipitation for Fort Bragg is 41.25 inches, with the majority falling as rain and fog drip in the winter months (December through March). The mean daily low and high temperatures in degrees Fahrenheit range from 39.5 in December to 66.4 in August/September (USDA 2024b).
The Study Area is located in the Lower Noyo River local watershed (HUC 12: 180101080703) and the Big-Navarro-Garcia regional watershed (HUC 8: 18010108). There are no aquatic features mapped in the Study Area on the Fort Bragg 7.5-minute quadrangle (USGS 2018), in the National Wetland Inventory (NWI: USFWS 2024a), or in the California Aquatic Resource Inventory (CARI; SFEI 2024). Precipitation and overland sheet flows are the primary hydrologic sources. See Section 5.1.2 for details on aquatic features within the Study Area.
A hydrologic analysis using the Antecedent Precipitation Tool (Deuters 2024) was conducted to determine whether precipitation levels during the 3 months prior to the site visit were above, below, or within the 30-year average for the region as well as to determine if the region was experiencing long-term drought conditions. Long-term precipitation data were obtained from weather stations in the vicinity of the Study Area. Drought condition data were obtained from monthly Palmer Drought Severity Index dataset published by the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA 2024). The analysis indicates above normal rainfall has occurred in each of the three months prior to the site assessment and the region was experiencing mild wetness (Appendix E). Due to the excess rainfall, the Study Area was observed to be excessively wet during the March site assessment, indicated by areas of obvious uplands (as indicated by vegetation), having saturated soil conditions. In addition to the excessive rainfall, the majority (if not all) of the Study Area is underlain by fill soils that are compacted or cement; placement and grading of fill soils has occurred in the Study Area and parcel relatively regularly since 2010 (NETR 2024). These impervious layers prevent water from seeping into soils below and create an artificially saturated condition. The contemporary and historic land disturbance through grading has presumably created depressions and swales where water collects during high rainfall years. Waterfilled depressions in the Study Area exhibiting wetland conditions are presumed to only exist due to man-induced activities of the presence of the Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
impervious layer and/or regular site disturbance. Previous biological assessments of the Study Area resulted in no aquatic features present.
3.3 Land Cover and Land Use
The Study Area is dominated by non-native grassland with patches of coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus). Plant species observed in the Study Area are included in Appendix B. Existing access roads of compacted gravel, as well as areas of compacted gravel from previous development are also present. The Study Area was used as a log deck during operations of the Georgia-Pacific Mill, up to approximately 2000, with the log deck empty by 2005 (NETR 2024). Since the mill ceased operations, the Study Area has been used by the City for placement of excavated/dredged soils, with soils placed or the area graded in 2010, 2013, 2016, and as recently as 2018 (NETR 2024). Following the completion of fill placement in 2018, the area of fill was seeded with native seeds, including coastal tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa ssp. holciformis), coast buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis) and other native plants (personal communication).
4.0 ASSESSMENT METHODS
Prior to the site visit, WRA biologists reviewed the following literature and performed database searches to assess the potential for sensitive natural communities (e.g., wetlands) and specialstatus species (e.g., endangered plants):
• Soil Survey of Mendocino County, Western Part, California (USDA 2006) • Fort Bragg 7.5-minute quadrangle (USGS 2018)
• Contemporary aerial photographs (Google Earth 2024)
• Historical aerial photographs (NETR 2024)
• National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2024a)
• California Aquatic Resources Inventory (SFEI 2024)
• California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB, CDFW 2024a) • California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory (CNPS 2024a) • Consortium of California Herbaria (CCH 2024)
• USFWS List of Federal Endangered and Threatened Species (USFWS 2024b) • eBird Online Database (eBird 2024)
• CDFW Publication, California Bird Species of Special Concern in California (Shuford and Gardali 2008)
• CDFW and University of California Press publication California Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern (Thomson et al. 2016)
• A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins 2003) • Various Mendocino County CDFW Vegetation Reports
• Classification of the Vegetation Alliances and Associations of Sonoma County, California (Klein et. al. 2015)
• A Manual of California Vegetation Online (CNPS 2024b) • Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities (Holland 1986) • California Natural Community List (CDFW 2023a)
Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
Database searches (i.e., CNDDB, CNPS) focused on the Noyo Hill, Dutchmans Knoll, Inglenook, Fort Bragg, Mathison Peak, and Mendocino USGS 7.5-minute quadrangles for special-status plants and wildlife.
Following the remote assessment, a botanist with 40-hour Corps wetland delineation training traversed the entire Study Area on foot to document: (1) land cover types (e.g., terrestrial communities, aquatic resources), (2) if and what type of aquatic natural communities (e.g., wetlands) are present, (3) existing conditions and to determine if such provide suitable habitat for any special-status plant or wildlife species, and (4) if special-status species are present1.
4.1 Land Cover Types
4.1.1 Terrestrial Land Cover Types
During the site visit, WRA evaluated the species composition and area occupied by distinct vegetation and other terrestrial land cover types. Mapping of these distinct areas utilized a combination of aerial imagery and ground surveys. In most instances, land cover types dominated by vegetation are characterized and mapped based on distinct shifts in plant assemblage (vegetation) and follow the California Natural Community List (CDFW 2023a), A Manual of California Vegetation, Online Edition (CNPS 2024b) or local CDFW Vegetation Reports (i.e., Keeler-Wolf 2019, Buck-Diaz 2020). These resources cannot anticipate every component of every potential vegetation assemblage in California, and so in some cases, it is necessary to identify other appropriate vegetative classifications based on best professional judgment of WRA biologists. When undescribed variants are used, it is noted in the description. Vegetation alliances (natural communities) with a CDFW Rank of 1 through 3 (globally critically imperiled [S1/G1], imperiled [S2/G2], or vulnerable [S3/G3]) (CDFW 2023a), were evaluated as ESHA for this assessment. If deemed applicable, vegetation data for sensitive natural communities was collected following the CDFW-CNPS Protocol for the Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Releve Field Form (CDFW 2023b). Sensitive land cover types are considered ESHA under the City Code.
4.1.2 Aquatic Resources
Aquatic resources include Waters of the U.S., Waters of the State, CCC wetlands, and Streams, Lakes, and Riparian Habitat as defined in the CWA, Porter-Cologne Act, California Coastal Act, and CFGC, respectively.
This site assessment does not constitute a formal wetland delineation; however, the assessment looked for superficial indicators of wetlands such as hydrophytic vegetation (i.e., plant communities dominated by wetland species), evidence of inundation or flowing water, saturated soils and seepage, and topographic depressions/swales. If sample points were taken, WRA followed the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (Corps 2010). This document uses several new wetland hydrology indicators not specified in the 1987 Corps Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The Study 1 Due to the timing of the assessment, it may or may not constitute protocol-level species surveys; see Section 4.2 if the site assessment would constitute a formal or protocol-level species survey.
Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
Area was surveyed for indicators of wetland hydrology. Positive indicators of wetland hydrology can include direct evidence (primary indicators), such as visible inundation or saturation, surface sediment deposits, oxidized root channels, and drift lines, or indirect indicators (secondary indicators) such as algal mats, shallow restrictive layers in the soil, or vegetation meeting the FAC-neutral test. Depressions, seeps, and topographic low areas were examined for these hydrological indicators.
Soils in the Study Area were examined for hydric soil indicators according to Natural Resources Conservation Service guidelines (USDA 2018). Soils formed under wetland (anaerobic) conditions generally have a low chroma matrix color, designated 0, 1, or 2, and contain mottles or other redoximorphic features. Soil profiles were characterized by depth, color, redoximorphic features, and texture. Soil color and chroma were determined using a Munsell soil color chart to determine if the soils in a particular area could be considered hydric.
Plant species within potential wetlands were assigned a wetland status according to the Corps list of plant species that occur in wetlands (Corps 2022). This wetland plant classification system is based on the expected frequency of occurrence of each species in wetlands.
If streams potentially jurisdictional under the CWA and/or the CFGC are noted on a site, they are delineated using a mix of surveyed topography data, high resolution aerial photographs, and a sub-meter GPS unit. The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) would be used to determine the extent of potential Section 404 jurisdiction, while the top-of-bank would be used to determine the extent of CFGC Section 1602 and 401. Streams with associated woody vegetation were assessed to determine if these areas would be considered riparian habitat by the CDFW following A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Section 1600-1607, California Fish and Game Code (CDFG 1994).
4.2 Special-status Species
4.2.1 General Assessment
Potential occurrence of special-status species in the Study Area was evaluated by first determining which special-status species occur in the greater vicinity through a literature and database review. Database searches for known occurrences of special-status species focused on the 7.5-minute USGS quadrangles mentioned above for special-status plants and for specialstatus wildlife.
A preliminary site visit was made on March 31, 2024, to evaluate the presence of suitable habitat for special-status species and conduct a floristic survey. Suitable habitat conditions are based on physical and biological conditions of the site, as well as the professional expertise of the investigating biologists. The potential for each special-status species to occur in the Study Area was then determined according to the following criteria:
• No Potential. Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for the species requirements (foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime).
Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
• Unlikely. Few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the site is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The species is not likely to be found on the site. • Moderate Potential. Some of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is unsuitable.
The species has a moderate probability of being found on the site. • High Potential. All of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or most of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is highly suitable. The species has a high probability of being found on the site. • Present. Species is observed on the site or has been recorded (i.e. CNDDB, other reports) on the site in the recent past.
If a more thorough assessment was warranted, a targeted or protocol-level assessment or survey was conducted or recommended as a future study. Methods for the assessments are described below. If a special-status species was observed during the site visit, its presence was recorded and discussed below in Section 5.2.2.
4.2.2 Special-status Plants
A special-status plant habitat assessment was performed on March 31, 2024. Habitat elements required or associated with certain species or species groups were searched for and noted. Such habitat elements include, but are not limited to: plant assemblages and vegetation structure; soil texture, parent material, and hydroperiod; surface and subsurface hydroperiods; topography, aspect, slope, and elevation; site management, including vegetation management; distance to documented occurrences of special-status plants; etc.
To determine the presence or absence of special-status plant species, a floristic survey was conducted within the Study Area on March 31. The survey corresponds to the period sufficient to observe and identify those special-status plants determined to have the potential to occur. The field survey was conducted by botanist familiar with the flora of Mendocino and surrounding counties. The survey was performed in accordance with those by several resource experts and agencies (CNPS 2001, CDFW 2018). Plants were identified using The Jepson Manual, 2nd Edition (Baldwin et. al. 2012) and Jepson Flora Project (eFlora 2024), to the taxonomic level necessary to determine whether or not they were sensitive. Plant names follow those of Jepson Flora Project (eFlora 2024), unless otherwise noted. If special-status plants were observed, information sufficient for a CNDDB form was collected for future database submittal once the Project becomes approved.
4.2.3 Special-status Wildlife
A general wildlife assessment was performed on March 31, 2024. Habitat elements required or associated with certain species (e.g., northern spotted owl) or species groups (e.g., bats, anadromous fish) were searched for and noted. Such habitat elements include, but are not limited to: plant assemblages and vegetation structure; stream depth, width, hydro-period, slope, and bed-and-bank structure; rock outcrops, caves, cliffs, overhangs, and substrate texture and rock content; history of site alteration and contemporary disturbances; etc.
Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
4.2.4 Critical Habitat, Essential Fish Habitat, and Wildlife Corridors Prior to the site visit the USFWS Critical Habitat Mapper (USFWS 2024c) and the NMFS Essential Fish Habitat Mapper (NMFS 2024) were queried to determine if critical habitat for any species or EFH, respectively, occurs within the Study Area. To account for potential impacts to wildlife movement/migratory corridors, biologists reviewed maps from the California Essential Connectivity Project (CalTrans 2010) and habitat connectivity data available through the CDFW Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS) (CDFW 2024b). Additionally, aerial imagery (Google Earth 2024) for the local area was referenced to assess if local core habitat areas were present within or connected to the Study Area. This assessment was refined based on observations of on-site physical and/or biological conditions.
5.0 ASSESSMENT RESULTS
5.1 Land Cover Types
Seven land cover types are present in the Study Area: developed, non-native grassland, Himalayan blackberry scrub, tufted hairgrass meadow, coyote brush scrub, drainage ditch, and artificial seasonal wetland. WRA mapped all land cover types within the Study Area (Figure 3).
Appendix D includes photographs of the Study Area.
5.1.1 Terrestrial Land Cover Types
Developed. Developed areas include Jere Melo Lane and areas of compacted gravel with low vegetation cover. Vegetation is characterized by non-native species adapted to compacted soils, including cutleaf plantain (Plantago coronopus), sheep sorrel (Rumex acetosella), bur clover (Medicago polymorpha), subterranean clover (Trifolium subterraneum), birdsfoot trefoil (Lotus corniculatus), and rattail brome (Festuca bromoides).
Non-Native Grassland:Velvet Grass-Sweet Vernal Grass Meadow (Holcus lanatus-Anthoxanthum odoratum Semi-Natural Alliance). CDFW Rank: None: Non-native grasslands are herbaceous stands dominated by non-native grass species and with less than a 10 percent cover of native herbaceous species (CDFW 2022). Within the Study Area, non-native grassland best fits the velvet grass-sweet vernal grass meadow semi-natural alliance due to dominance of velvet grass (Holcus lanatus) and sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum)(CNPS 2024b). Within the Study Area, this association is the dominant land cover type, with interstitial areas of coyote brush scrub and Himalayan blackberry scrub.
Dominant herbs include sweet vernal grass (Anthoxanthum odoratum), common velvet grass (Holcus lanatus), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), cutleaf plantain (Plantago coronopus), bur clover (Medicago polymorpha), rattail brome (Festuca bromoides), Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephala), field vetch (Vicia sativa), subterranean clover (Trifolium subterraneum), wild radish (Raphanus sativus), crane’s bill geranium (Geranium molle), ice plant (Carpobrotus edulis), and pale starwort (Stellaria pallida). Native species are present but are not characteristic and do not comprise 10 percent cover. Native species include California poppy Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
(Eschscholzia californica) coastal tufted hairgrass (Deschampsia cespitosa ssp. holciformis), and coast buckwheat (Eriogonum latifolium). Scattered coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis) and Himalayan blackberry (Rubus armeniacus) are present.
Himalayan blackberry scrub (Rubus armeniacus Shrubland Semi-Natural Association). CDFW Rank: GNR SNR. This association is classified under the Himalayan blackberry-rattlebox-edible fig riparian scrub Shrubland Semi-Natural Alliance (CNPS 2024b). The alliance typically occurs in pastures, forest plantations, roadsides, streamsides, river flats, floodplains, fence lines, mesic disturbed areas and right-of-way corridors across cis-montane California (CNPS 2024b). The association typically occurs along riparian sites, mesic clearings, disturbed areas, and stock ponds (CNPS 2024b). In the Study Area, this association occurs in scattered stands in swales and along ditches. The plants are predominantly decadent and form monotypic stands.
Coastal tufted hairgrass meadow (Deschampsia cespitosa Herbaceous Association). CDFW Rank:
GNR S3. This association is classified under the Coastal tufted hairgrass-Meadow barleyCalifornia oat grass meadow Herbaceous Alliance (CDFW 2024b). This alliance typically occurs on moist to wet meadows on coastal bluffs, coastal terrace prairies, swales, streams terraces, sand dunes and seasonally flooded areas along the California coast and Coast Range (CNPS 2024b). Coastal tufted hairgrass is an aggressive colonizer on disturbed sites and stands are maintained by disturbance in most environments (Walsh 1995a). Stands are mapped where coastal tufted hair grass is dominant or co-dominant in the herbaceous layer (CNPS 2024b).
Within the Study Area, a stand is present along and adjacent to the large area of fill soil.
Personal communication to WRA disclosed that the area of fill and surrounding land was seeded with native seeds, including coastal tufted hairgrass and coyote bush, following placement of the fill soil. As the native grass is only present in the areas on and near the fill soil, the presence of the grass is presumably due to the seeding, and not from natural recruitment. Coastal tufted hairgrass is relatively tall (2 to 3 feet high) with 95 percent absolute cover on the slopes of the fill soil and short (4 to 6 inches) with 50 percent absolute cover on top of the fill soil. Associated species include velvet grass, yarrow (Achillea millefolia), lupine (Lupinus sp.), and scattered emergent coyote brush at 1 to 5 percent cover.
Coyote brush scrub (Baccharis pilularis Shrubland Association). CDFW Rank G4 S5. This association is classified under the Coyote brush scrub Shrubland Alliance (CNPS 2024b). This alliance typically occurs on coastal bluffs, terraces, stabilized dunes, spits, stream sides, open exposed slopes, ridges, and gaps in forest stands along the coast, Coast Range, valley, Sierra Nevada foothills (CNPS 2024b). Stands are mapped where coyote brush is dominant to codominant in the shrub layer (CNPS 2024b). Within the Study Area, stands occur in patches of slightly higher elevation areas. Coyote bush is decadent to mature with 15 to 50 percent absolute cover and 100 percent relative cover in the shrub layer. The understory is dominated by velvet grass.
5.1.2 Aquatic Resources
Drainage Ditch. A ditch excavated in uplands occurs along Jere Melo Lane. The top-of-bank (TOB) is 4 to 6 feet wide and the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) is 3 to 4 feet wide. The feature is covered with a dense canopy of decadent Himalayan blackberry with emergent Pacific rush Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
(Juncus effusus ssp. pacificus) and velvet grass; in areas where the channel was visible, water was observed. The feature captures water from the local watershed and conveys flow west to a culvert and to the Pacific Ocean.
Seasonal Wetland (Artificial). Seasonal wetlands are topographic depressions or swales where hydrology from water saturation is sufficient to create anaerobic conditions and support dominance of hydrophytic vegetation and dry out each year. These areas exhibit all three parameters of wetlands: hydric soil, wetland hydrology, and dominance of hydrophytic vegetation.
Within the Study Area, three seasonal wetlands are present. Each feature had surface water from 2 to 6 inches in depth at the time of the site visit in late March. Vegetation in each feature is dominated by hydrophytic plants including pennyroyal mint (Mentha pulegium), barley (Hordeum marinum), hyssop loosestrife (Lythrum hyssopifolium), and tall cyperus (Cyperus eragrostis). Two of the features (SW-1 and SW-2) occur in swales between areas of compacted gravel. Soils are fill soils with shovel refusal at 6 inches due to rocks and compacted fill; no indicators of hydric soils were observed; however, soils are presumed hydric due to dominance of hydrophytic species, and location within a topographic position likely to collect water. Seasonal wetland 3 (SW-3) occurs in a depression on compacted gravel. Each of these features has no hydrological connectivity to a traditional navigable waterway (TNW) and are considered isolated. The land surrounding the wetlands is dominated by non-native species and developed areas. Water enters the features from precipitation and runoff from surrounding paved watershed. No wetlands were previously documented in the Study Area (WRA 2005, WRA 2009, WRA 2010). The wetlands are presumed to have formed after land disturbance activities since 2010 and are considered to be recently formed due to human disturbances and two consecutive years of above normal rainfall.
As the features are recent, man-induced features, they are considered to be artificial. However, these features will be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. Appendix F includes Wetland Data Forms with information from the four sample points.
5.2 Special-status Species
5.2.1 Special-status Plant Species
Based upon a review of the resource databases listed in Section 4.0, 75 special-status plant species have been documented in the vicinity of the Study Area (Appendix C). Two of these plants have the potential to occur in the Study Area. The remaining 73 species documented from the greater vicinity are unlikely or have no potential to occur for one or more of the following:
• Hydrologic conditions (e.g., tidal, marsh) necessary to support the special-status plant species are not present in the Study Area
• Edaphic (soil) conditions (e.g., acidic sand, sand) necessary to support the special-status plant species are not present in the Study Area
• Topographic conditions (e.g., north-facing slope, montane) necessary to support the special-status plant species are not present in the Study Area • Unique pH conditions (e.g., acidic bogs) necessary to support the special-status plant species are not present in the Study Area
• Associated natural communities (e.g., conifer forest, tidal marsh) necessary to support the special-status plant species are not present in the Study Area Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
• The Study Area is geographically isolated (e.g. below elevation, inland environ) from the documented range of the special-status plant species
• Land use history and contemporary management (e.g., absence of mowing or recent placement of fill) has degraded the localized habitat necessary to support the specialstatus plant species. • Previous surveys did not identify populations.
Two species, johnny-nip (Castilleja ambigua var. ambigua; Rank 4), harlequin lotus (Hosackia gracilis; Rank 4) were determined to have a moderate potential to occur within the Study Area due to potential habitat and tolerance to low quality habitats.
Johnny-nip (Castilleja ambigua var. ambigua). Rank 4.2. Moderate Potential (Not Observed):
Johnny-nip is an annual hemi-parasitic forb in broomrape family (Orobanchaceae) that blooms from March through August. It typically occurs in coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub, coastal prairie, marshes and swamps, valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pool habitat at elevations ranging from 0 to 1,425 feet. Associated species include blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum), meadow barley (Hordeum brachyantherum), Italian rye grass, sea thrift (Armeria maritima), California oatgrass (Danthonia californica), and harlequin lotus (CCH 2024).
The Study Area includes grassland habitat that may support this species. Additionally, this species is disturbance tolerant. Documented occurrences are located within 5-miles of the Study Area (Calflora 2024).
Harlequin lotus (Hosackia gracilis). CRPR 4. Moderate Potential. (Not Observed). Harlequin lotus is a perennial forb in the pea family (Fabaceae) that blooms from March to July. It typically occurs in wetlands or ditches in broadleaf upland forest, coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub, closed-cone coniferous forest, cismontane woodland, coastal prairie, meadow and seep, marsh and swamp, North Coast coniferous forest, and valley and foothill grassland habitats at elevations ranging from 0 to 2,295 feet (CNPS 2024a). Known associated species include coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), little rattlesnake grass (Briza minor), blue-eyed grass (Sisyrinchium bellum), western rush (Juncus occidentalis), sky lupine (Lupinus nanus), big heron bill (Erodium botrys), scarlet pimpernel (Lysimachia arvensis), and common velvet grass (Holcus lanatus) (CCH 2024). The Study Area includes mesic habitat that may support this species. Additionally, this species is disturbance tolerant. Documented occurrences are located within 5-miles of the Study Area (Calflora 2024).
WRA biologists conducted site visits during a period sufficient to identify the two special-status plant species with the potential to occur within the Study Area; none were observed within the Study Area. Botanical surveys conducted by WRA in 2010 and 2013 did not observe special-status plants in the Study Area (WRA 2010, WRA 2013).
Western dog violet (Viola adunca) was also considered, as it is the known larval food plant for the federal endangered Behren’s silverspot butterfly (Speyeria zerene behrensii). The plant is unlikely to occur in the Study Area due to reasons identified above. Additionally, the species was observed blooming at reference sites and would have been identifiable during the site assessment, if present.
Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
5.2.2 Special-status Wildlife Species
A total of 58 special-status wildlife species have been documented in the vicinity of the Study Area (CDFW 2024a)(Appendix C). Two special-status species have the potential to occur in the Study Area. The remaining species are unlikely or have no potential to occur in the Study Area for one or more of the following:
• Aquatic habitats (e.g., rivers, ponds) necessary to support the special-status wildlife species are not present in the Study Area
• Vegetation habitats (e.g., coast redwood forest, riparian scrub) that provide nesting and/or foraging resources necessary support the special-status wildlife species are not present in the Study Area
• Physical structures and vegetation (e.g., mines, old-growth coniferous trees) necessary to provide nesting, cover, and/or foraging habitat to support the special-status wildlife species are not present in the Study Area
• Host plants (e.g., dog violet, harlequin lotus) necessary to provide larval and nectar resources for the special-status wildlife species are not present in the Study Area • The Study Area is outside (e.g., north of, west of) of the special-status wildlife species documented nesting range
Species with Potential to Occur
Grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum). CDFW Species of Special Concern. The grasshopper sparrow is a summer resident in California, wintering in Mexico and Central America. This species occurs in open grassland and prairie-like habitats with short- to moderate-height vegetation, and often scattered shrubs (Shuford and Gardali 2008). Both perennial and annual (non-native) grasslands are used. Nests are placed on the ground and well concealed, often adjacent to grass clumps (Shuford and Gardali 2008). Grasshopper sparrows are secretive and generally detected by voice. Insects comprise the majority of the diet. The Study Area includes suitable low to moderate grass and scattered shrubs suitable for nesting.
The species was observed near the Study Area in 2019 (eBird 2024).
Bryant’s savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis alaudinus). CDFW Species of Special Concern. This subspecies of the common and widespread savannah sparrow is a year-round resident of the coastal California fog belt. It typically occupies upper tidally-influenced habitats, often found where wetland communities merge into grassland. Nesting occurs in vegetation on or near the ground, including along roads, levees, and canals (Shuford and Gardali 2008). Like most sparrows, Bryant’s consumes primarily invertebrates and vegetable matter (e.g., seeds).
The Study Area is located along the coast and includes grasslands suitable for nesting.
Individuals have been observed nearby (eBird 2024).
Additionally, various non-status bird species with baseline protections under the MBTA and CFGC may use vegetation within the Study Area for nesting. Both non-status and special-status birds may forage in the Study Area.
Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
5.2.3 Critical Habitat, Essential Fish Habitat, and Wildlife Corridors The Study Area does not contain any designated Critical Habitat (USFWS 2024c) or Essential Fish Habitat (NMFS 2024). The Study Area does not contain perennial stream or riverine habitat; therefore, anadromous fish will not utilize these streams. The Study Area is not within a designated wildlife corridor (CalTrans 2010). The site is located on the bluff of the former GP Mill Site. While common wildlife species presumably utilize the site to some degree for movement at a local scale, the Study Area itself does not provide corridor functions beyond connecting similar partial open lands in the vicinity.
6.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
6.1 Proposed Project
The La-bone-atory will be located near the southeast corner of the 11.64-acre parcel. This remote location will allow for storage and processing of marine mammal bones in an area where occasional odors will not impact visitors to the Ocean Science Center or Noyo Headlands Park.
The proposed La-bone-atory is a simple warehouse structure that will be used for preserving, restoring, and archiving the Noyo Center's marine mammal skeleton collection. It will provide a dedicated space for the Noyo Center to securely store its 73-foot blue whale skeleton while continuing work on its restoration and articulation for eventual display at the Ocean Science Center. The La-bone-atory will allow the Noyo Center to stage more exhibits in its existing museum spaces (i.e., the Discovery Center and the Crow's Nest Visitor's Center) by providing space for storage of exhibits that are rotated out of the museum spaces as well as space to construct and assemble new exhibits. The building will also store equipment (remote operated vehicles, boats, etc.) associated with the Noyo Center's marine research activities.
The La-bone-atory is a 2,400 square foot building (80' x 28') that is one-story in height (19' 8" at the ridge). It will be sided with cement fiber panels (Hardi-plank) with wood battons and roofed with composition shingle roofing. The building will be constructed on a concrete slab with an uncovered 8,700 square foot asphalt apron for parking. A 7957 square foot stormwater retention area will be developed adjacent to the parking lot and building to capture surface water from the impervious surfaces. The retention area will be vegetated with native or non-invasive plant species suitable for filtering water.
The La-bone-atory will be clad with earth-toned siding and roofing and shore pines will be planted in clusters around its perimeter to help it blend with the surroundings. The design is a simple, lowprofile structure similar to storage structures at the nearby WWTF. Exterior lighting for the Labone-atory project will be minimal and downcast and shielded.
Vehicular traffic to the La-bone-atory will be minimal as it is not intended for public access except for infrequent educational events associated with the articulation of marine mammal skeletons.
The proposed Project will utilize existing gravel roads for access and areas most recently disturbed through the placement of fill soils in 2018. Development is proposed within 100 feet of artificial seasonal wetlands and coastal tufted hairgrass meadow (Figure 4). As described in Section 5.1.1 Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
above, the wetlands are presumed to be artificial, and the coastal tufted hairgrass meadow is present due to seeding following fill soil placemen; as such, these areas do not meet the criteria of ESHA and are not considered as ESHA. However, as the designation of non-ESHA of those areas is in the professional opinion of WRA, a reduced buffer analysis and alternatives analysis are included in the following sections to identify potential impacts to these areas and identify appropriate avoidance measures to reduce potential impacts should regulators disagree with the non-ESHA designation and consider the areas as ESHA. Additionally, avoidance measures are provided for nesting special-status and resident/migratory nesting birds.
6.2 Alternatives Analysis
As the driveway of the Project is proposed within 100-feet of artificial seasonal wetlands, which could potentially be considered ESHA, an alternatives analysis is provided to review potential alternatives to the Project. Two alternatives to the proposed Project were identified and are discussed in this section. These alternatives (Alternatives 1 and 3), along with the preferred alternative (Alternative 2), are compared to identify the least damaging alternative feasible. Figure 5 illustrates the two alternatives and the preferred alternative in relation to aquatic areas. Table 1 provides a summary of each alternative.
Alternative 1
This alternative utilizes the existing compacted gravel road to the northeast of the proposed Project. This alternative was chosen due to the presence of an existing road, and close proximity to existing utility lines that will be used to provide utilities to the proposed structure. This alternative would encroach into the 50-foot buffer of two artificial seasonal wetlands (SW-2, SW3; Figure 4), occurring as close as 15 feet, and partially fill one artificial seasonal wetland (SW-1) that is located on the compacted gravel. Functional capacity of the artificial wetland within the road alignment would be reduced due to the filling of the feature. The reduced buffer to the other artificial wetlands is unlikely to reduce functional capacity as the existing buffer is of low quality, and development within the buffers would be similar to existing conditions and not significantly change existing capacity.
Alternative 2 (preferred alternative)
This alternative utilizes one of the existing compacted gravel roads and is in close proximity to existing utility lines under Jere Melo Lane. This alternative would avoid aquatic resources, providing at least a 7-foot buffer of one artificial seasonal wetland (SW-1) and 16-foot buffer of another artificial seasonal wetland (SW-2). No filling of artificial wetlands would be necessary.
The reduced buffer to the artificial wetlands is unlikely to reduce functional capacity as the existing buffer is of low quality, and development within the buffers would be similar to existing conditions and not significantly change existing capacity.
Alternative 3
This alternative utilizes a portion of a prior compacted gravel road for access; however, due to the presence of the drainage ditch along Jere Melo Lane, a road crossing, approximately 18-feet in width, would have to be constructed across the drainage ditch for access. This Alternative would Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
avoid the 50 foot buffer of two artificial seasonal wetlands (SW-1, SW-3) and would be immediately adjacent to one artificial seasonal wetland (SW-2) (no buffer). Functional capacity of the drainage ditch would be reduced due to the infrastructure required to be placed in the ditch.
Functional capacity of the artificial wetland immediately adjacent to the proposed alignment would be reduced due to a loss of buffer along one side of the feature. The reduced buffer to the other artificial wetlands is unlikely to reduce functional capacity as the existing buffer is of low quality, and development within the buffers would be similar to existing conditions and not significantly change existing capacity.
Table 1. Alternatives Analysis Summary
Alternative Wetland Impacts Drainage Ditch Impacts
1 Partial fill of one artificial
seasonal wetland and
encroachment up to 15 feet of
artificial seasonal wetland
No impacts
2 (preferred alternative) No fill of artificial seasonal wetlands and encroachment up
to 7-feet of one artificial
seasonal wetland
No impacts
3 Avoidance of 50-foot buffer of
two artificial seasonal wetlands
and no buffer for one artificial
seasonal wetland
Fill portion of the ditch to cross
Based on the analysis above, the preferred alternative is the least damaging feasible alternative as no aquatic resources will be directly impacted and all will be avoided with sufficient distance to employ erosion and water quality Best Management Practices (BMP’s) to prevent potential impacts, while maintaining existing buffer quality and functional capacity.
6.3 Buffer Analysis
Projects that propose construction with a buffer of less than 100 feet from an ESHA must provide information that indicates a lesser buffer distance will not have a significant adverse impact on the habitat. As noted above, the designation of non-ESHA of the artificial seasonal wetlands and coastal tufted hairgrass meadow is in the professional opinion of WRA; however, should regulators disagree with the non-ESHA designation and consider the areas as ESHA, a buffer analysis is provided. This assessment is presented below in Table 3. The assessment utilizes guidelines outlined in the City of Fort Bragg LCP to assess the impacts of a reduced buffer zone on the artificial seasonal wetland, drainage ditch, and grassland present within 100 feet of the Project.
The impacts to the 100-foot buffer of these areas by the proposed Project is summarized in Table 2 below.
Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
Table 2. Buffer Impacts
Area Total Buffer in Study
Area (acres)
Impacted Buffer
(acres)
Percent Buffer To
Remain
Artificial Seasonal
Wetlands 1.52 0.20 87
Drainage Ditch 0.61 0.06 91
Tufted Hairgrass
Meadow 1.43 0.10 94
As proposed, the access road will be located within 7-feet of one artificial seasonal wetland (SW1), 16-feet of a second artificial seasonal wetland (SW-2), 50-feet of a third artificial seasonal wetland (SW-3), and 70-feet of a drainage ditch. Additionally, the parking area is proposed 39- feet from the tufted hairgrass meadow, which is likely present due to seeding and not natural recruitment (Figure 5).
Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
Table 3. Reduced Buffer Analysis
Criteria for Establishing Buffer Areas (Policy OS-1.9)
Policy Assessment
Width. The width of the buffer area shall
be a minimum of 100 feet, unless an
applicant can demonstrate, after
consultation with the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife, other
relevant resource agencies, and the City,
that 100 feet is not necessary to protect
the resources of that particular habitat
area and the adjacent upland transitional
habitat function of the buffer from possible
significant disruption caused by the
proposed development. The buffer areas
shall be measured from the outside edge
of the Environmentally Sensitive Habitat
Areas (ESHAs) and in no event shall be
less than 30 feet in width.
As described in Section 5.1.1, the wetlands are presumed artificial, and the grassland dominated by native grass is present due to seeding and not natural recruitment. As
such, these areas do not meet the criteria of ESHA and are not considered as such in this report. However, as the nonESHA designation is in the professional opinion of WRA and not necessarily of the regulators, a reduced buffer analysis is provided should these areas be considered ESHA.
The proposed Project is situated within 100-feet of these areas. An alternatives analysis was conducted that
considered two other alternatives along with the proposed Project, and the proposed Project (preferred alternative) is determined to be least damaging feasible alternative as it fully avoids the artificial seasonal wetlands.
Recommendations in Section 7 below are provided to
reduce potential impacts and to allow for continued
functional capacity and biological continuance. The
proposed Project has been designed to be the minimal
extent practical while still serving the purpose of providing a space for marine science activities. With implementation of the recommendations, a reduced buffer is anticipated to allow for the continuance and function of the artificial wetlands, drainage ditch, and coastal tufted hairgrass
meadow.
a. Biological Significance of Adjacent Lands
Lands adjacent to a wetland, stream, or
riparian habitat area vary in the degree to
which they are functionally related to
these habitat areas. Functional
relationships may exist if species
associated with such areas spend a
significant portion of their life cycle on
adjacent lands. The degree of significance
depends upon the habitat requirements of
the species in the habitat area (e.g.,
nesting, feeding, breeding, or resting).
Where a significant functional relationship
exists, the land supporting this relationship
shall also be considered to be part of the
Aquatic areas and coastal tufted hairgrass meadow
include the literal extent of the resource (i.e., the edge of the wetland or edge of habitat) as the buffer surrounding each is unlikely to provide a significant functional
relationship when compared to areas outside the buffer
due to similar conditions present within and outside the buffer area.
Existing conditions of aquatic 100-foot buffers will not significantly change as the proposed development within the 100-foot buffer is an access road, and the existing 100- foot buffer already includes compacted gravel roads.
Existing conditions of the grassland 100-foot buffer is nonnative grassland or planted grassland on fill soils. The grassland will be avoided by at least 39-feet and that
Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
Criteria for Establishing Buffer Areas (Policy OS-1.9)
Policy Assessment
ESHA, and the buffer area shall be
measured from the edge of these lands
and be sufficiently wide to protect these
functional relationships. Where no
significant functional relationships exist,
the buffer shall be measured from the
edge of the ESHA that is adjacent to the
proposed development.
buffer will remain in similar condition following the
completion of the proposed development. The proposed
Project will develop a relatively small portion of the 100- foot buffer of the grassland, while the majority of the 100- foot buffer will be avoided.
The functional relationship between the artificial wetlands and grassland and associated buffer, upon completion of the Project, will be similar to current conditions. Therefore, the buffer widths for those areas to the proposed
development is sufficiently wide to protect the existing functional relationships.
Standard Best Management Practices (BMP’s) as
recommended in Section 7 will ensure protection of the
artificial seasonal wetlands, drainage ditch, and coastal tufted hairgrass meadow during construction.
b. Sensitivity of Species to Disturbance
The width of the buffer zone shall be
based, in part, on the distance necessary
to ensure that the most sensitive species
of plants and animals will not be disturbed
significantly by the permitted
development. Such a determination shall
be based on the following after
consultation with CDFW or others with
similar expertise:
(a) Nesting, feeding, breeding, resting, or
other habitat requirements of both
resident and migratory fish and wildlife
species
(b) An assessment of the short-term and
long-term adaptability of various species
to human disturbance.
(c) An assessment of the impact and
activity levels of the proposed
development on the resource
Two special-status birds and non-listed birds have the
potential to nest within the 100-foot buffer of the proposed Project. No special-status species are determined to utilize the seasonal wetlands. Special-status plants are presumed absent.
(a) The artificial seasonal wetlands are very small and do not provide unique or special values to wildlife.
In general, the Study Area provides some habitat
value for nesting, foraging, and cover for specialstatus birds and non-status birds considered under the MBTA and CFGC; pre-construction surveys will
determine the presence of such species and
provide recommendations to avoid impacts (See
Section 7 below).
(b) The Study Area is situated between two developed
areas, including a recreational trail that is
regularly visited by humans. Localized wildlife is
ostensibly tolerant of the current degree of human
activity. The proposed Project will reduce potential
wildlife habitat; however, the reduction in habitat
is not significant and similar habitat is present in
the vicinity of the Study Area and can be used by
wildlife.
Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
Criteria for Establishing Buffer Areas (Policy OS-1.9)
Policy Assessment
(c) With the implementation of Recommendation 3,
pre-construction surveys will be performed to
ensure that the implementation of the proposed
Project will not impact special-status or nesting
birds.
c. Erosion Susceptibility
The width of the buffer zone shall be
based, in part, on an assessment of the
slope, soils, impervious surface coverage,
runoff characteristics, and vegetative cover
of the parcel proposed for development
and adjacent lands. A sufficient buffer to
allow for the interception of any additional
material eroded as a result of the
proposed development shall be provided
The Project Area is gently-sloped with a slight slope
toward the north. The proposed Project will be designed to reduce erosion of the surrounding land. BMP’s (see Section 7 below) will prevent soil migration toward/into the
seasonal wetland during construction.
d. Use of Natural Topography
Where feasible, use hills and bluffs
adjacent to ESHA to buffer these habitat
areas. Where otherwise permitted, locate
development on the sides of hills away
from ESHA. Include bluff faces in the buffer
area.
There are no natural topographic features that can be used as areas of buffer for the proposed Project. One artificial seasonal wetland is located in a topographic swale and
the proposed Project utilizes the flat land above the swale for development.
e. Use Existing Man-Made Features
Where feasible, use man-made features
such as roads and dikes to buffer ESHA
The proposed Project utilizes existing developed areas, including the compacted gravel roads. Additionally, the proposed Project is located immediately adjacent to a
large area of recently placed fill soils.
f. Lot Configuration and Location of Existing Development Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
Criteria for Establishing Buffer Areas (Policy OS-1.9)
Policy Assessment
Where an existing subdivision or other
development is largely built-out and the
buildings are a uniform distance from a
habitat area, at least that same distance
shall be required as a buffer zone for any
new development permitted. However, if
that distance is less than 100 feet,
additional mitigation measures (e.g.,
planting of native vegetation) shall be
provided to ensure additional protection.
The proposed Project is located on a parcel formerly of the Georgia-Pacific Mill. Adjacent development includes
abandoned lots covered in concrete to the east, the City Wastewater Treatment Plant to the north, and is located on a former log deck. Recommendations provided in
Section 7 will protect artificial wetlands, drainage ditch, and coastal tufted hairgrass meadow areas.
g. Type and Scale of Development Proposed
The type and scale of the proposed
development will, to a large degree,
determine the size of the buffer zone
necessary to protect the ESHA. Such
evaluations will be made on a case-bycase basis depending upon the resources involved, the degree to which adjacent
lands have been developed, and the type
of development already existing in the
area.
The proposed Project is a simple, low-profile structure similar to storage structures at the nearby Wastewater
Treatment Facility. The proposed Project has been
adjusted from original plans to avoid the artificial
wetlands, drainage ditch, and coastal tufted hairgrass
meadow and maximize use of non-ESHA areas (i.e.,
existing roads and non-native grassland).
7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are recommendations to protect the Study Area’s overall biological integrity.
7.1 Land Cover Types
7.1.1 Terrestrial Land Cover Types
The Study Area includes five terrestrial land cover types: developed areas, non-native grassland, Himalayan blackberry scrub, coyote brush scrub, and coastal tufted hairgrass meadow. Of these, only coastal tufted hairgrass meadow may be considered a potential ESHA; as the grassland is presumably only present due to seeding that occurred following placement of fill soil and not from natural recruitment, the grassland is not considered an ESHA in this report. However, the proposed Project has been intentionally sited 39-feet from the grassland to provide a buffer and development will not encroach into the buffer. The following recommendation is provided to avoid accidental impacts to the grassland during construction:
Recommendation 1: The literal extent of the grassland within the vicinity of the Project will be demarcated with high visibility flagging or fencing. All construction staff will be made aware of Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
the grassland and the status as a protected area. No staging or staff will enter the grassland habitat.
7.1.2 Aquatic Resources
The Study Area includes three seasonal wetlands which are all considered to be artificial, as discussed in Section 5.1.1, and a drainage ditch. As the wetlands are considered artificial, they are determined to not be ESHA. However, as the wetlands may be considered ESHA by regulators, potential impacts are considered in this report and recommendations for avoidance are provided.
The proposed Project will avoid the literal extent of the artificial wetlands but is within 100-feet (see reduced buffer analysis above), avoiding at least 7-feet and up to 50-feet of the artificial wetlands. The drainage ditch will be avoided by at least 20 feet. As existing conditions and function and value of the aquatic resources are low, and the wetlands are likely artificial, the reduced buffer is determined unlikely to reduce the value and function of the artificial wetlands.
Project construction may potentially impact the features through accidental encroachment or sediment deposition. However, the following recommendations are provided to protect the artificial wetlands during construction:
Recommendation 2: The literal extent of the aquatic resources will be demarcated with silt fencing. All construction staff will be made aware of the aquatic resources and their status as a protected habitat.
No equipment or materials will be laid down within the fencing barrier. All materials will be stored on existing hardscaped areas or, if laid down on existing vegetation, will only be laid down in those areas scheduled for development. Spill prevention devices will be readily available during construction and utilized for all toxic liquids/materials including but not limited to gasoline, diesel, motor oil, solvents, paints, and herbicides. These materials should be stored 100 feet or greater from the aquatic resources though they may necessarily require use within 100 feet.
Sediment migration and erosion control measures will be deployed to protect the aquatic resources. Such barriers may include weed-free hay bales, weed-free straw waddles, silt fencing, and/or a combination of these materials. Regular inspection of the barriers will be deployed and immediate remedies of damaged or compromised areas of the barriers. The barriers will be installed between areas of land disturbance and the aquatic resources, located as far from the resources as feasible.
All land disturbance activities will occur during the dry season (May 15 through October 15) and will be suspended during rainfalls of greater than one-half inch over a 24-hour period, all activities will cease for 24 hours after perceptible rain ceases.
Recommendation 3: The proposed Project should include a stormwater swale between paved areas and the aquatic resources to enhance the buffer.
Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
7.2 Special-status Species
7.2.1 Special-status Plants
The Study Area does not support special-status plants; therefore, no further actions are recommended for such.
7.2.2 Special-status Wildlife
The Study Area has the potential to support two special-status wildlife: grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) and Bryant’s savannah sparrow (Passerculus sandwichensis alaudinus). The following recommendations are to protect these special-status species as well as non-status nesting birds.
Recommendation 4: Vegetation alteration/removal and initial ground disturbance should occur from August 16 to January 31, outside of the general bird nesting season. If activities during this time are not feasible, a pre-construction nesting bird survey should be performed by a qualified biologist no more than 7 days prior to the initiation of ground disturbance. The survey should cover the Project Area and surrounding areas within 500 feet. If active bird nests are found during the survey, an appropriate no-disturbance buffer should be established by the qualified biologist. Once it is determined that the young have fledged (left the nest) or the nest otherwise becomes inactive (e.g., due to predation), the buffer may be lifted and work may be initiated within the buffer. If more than 14 days of no work occurs during the nesting season, birds may begin nesting; therefore, if more than 14 days of no work occurs during the nesting season, an additional nesting survey is recommended.
7.2.3 Wildlife Movement
There is no Critical Habitat, Essential Fish Habitat, or regional migratory corridors that will be impacted from the proposed Project. The existing redevelopment within and adjacent to the Study Area is in and of itself unlikely to result in any significant impacts to local wildlife movement.
Preservation of portions of the Study Area’s open habitats will also allow for continued localized movement of wildlife. No further actions are recommended for Critical Habitat, Essential Fish Habitat, or wildlife corridors.
Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
8.0 REFERENCES
Baldwin, B.G., D.H. Goldman, D.J. Keil, R. Patterson, T.J. Rosatti, and D.H. Wilken (eds.). 2012.
The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, 2nd Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA. 1568 pp.
Buck-Diaz, J., Sikes, K., Evens, J. Vegetation Sampling, Mapping and Accuracy Assessment Report For Point Arena-Stornetta Unit. California Native Plant Society Vegetation Program. 2020.
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 1994. A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Sections 1600-1607. Environmental Service Division, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA.
(CDFW). 2018. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Special-status Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. California Natural Resources Agency, California Department of Fish and Game. March 20, 2018.
(CDFW). 2023a. California Natural Community List. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. June 1. (CDFW). 2023b. Survey Considerations for California Endangered Species Act Candidate Bumble Bee Species. June.
(CDFW). 2023c. CDFW-CNPS Protocol For the Combined Vegetation Rapid Assessment and Releve Field Form. January 13.
(CDFW). 2024a. California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. Sacramento, CA. Most recently accessed: April 2024. (CDFW). 2024b. Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS). Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch. Sacramento.
Available online: http:// https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/BIOS. Most recently accessed: April 2024.
California Department of Transportation (CalTrans). 2010. California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project. Available at: https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/conservation/planning. Accessed: April 2024.
California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2024. California Invasive Plant Inventory: Cal-IPC Publication 2006-2. California Invasive Plant Council, Berkeley, CA. Available online:
http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/index.php. Accessed: April 2024.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2001. CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines. June 2, 2001. (CNPS). 2024a. Online Inventory of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants of California.
Available at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org/. Most recently accessed: April 2024.
Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
(CNPS). 2024b. A Manual of California Vegetation Online. Available at: http://vegetation.cnps.org/.
Most recently accessed: April 2024.
California Soil Resources Lab (CSRL). 2024. Online Soil Survey. Available at:
http://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/drupal/ Accessed: Accessed: April 2024.
Consortium of California Herbaria (CCH). 2024. Data provided by the participants of the Consortium of California Herbaria. Available at: http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/consortium.
Accessed: Accessed: April 2024.
eBird. 2024. eBird: An online database of bird distribution and abundance [web application]. eBird, Ithaca, New York. Available at: http://www.ebird.org. Most recently accessed: April 2024.
Jepson Herbarium. Jepson Flora Project (eFlora). 2024. Jepson eFlora Online at:
http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/IJM.html. Accessed: April 2024.
Deters, J. 2024. Antecedent Precipitation Tool version 2.0. Online at: https://github.com/jDetersUSACE; most recently accessed: April 2024.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi 39180-0631.
Google Earth. 2024. Fort Bragg, Mendocino County area. Image dates: 1993-2021. Most recently accessed: April 2024.
NETR Historical Aerials. 2024. Available at: http://historicalaerials.com. Accessed: April 2024.
Hatfield, R., S. Jepsen, R. Thorp, L. Richardson, S. Colla, and S. Foltz Jordan. 2015. Bombus occidentalis. The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species 2015: e.T44937492A46440201. http://dx.doi.org/10.2305/IUCN.UK.2015-2.RLTS.T44937492A46440201.en.
Holland, R. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.
California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, CA. 156 pp.
Keeler-Wolf, T., Hickson, D., Yacoub, R., and Colletti, M. Classification and Mapping of Mendocino Cypress Woodland and Related Vegetation on Oligotrophic Soils, Mendocino and Sonoma Counties, California. California Dept of Fish and Wildlife Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program. January 2019
Klein, A., Keeler-Wolf, T., Evens, J. 2015. Classification of the Vegetation Alliances and Associations of Sonoma County, California. California Dept of Fish and Wildlife Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program and California Native Plant Society. December National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2024. Essential Fish Habitat Mapper. Available at:
https://www.habitat.noaa.gov/protection/efh/efhmapper/. Most recently accessed: April 2024.
Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2024. Historical Palmer Drought Indices. Online at: https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/drought/historical-palmers/; most recently accessed: April 2024.
San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI). 2024. California Aquatic Resource Inventory (CARI).
Available at: http://www.sfei.org/cari#sthash.Mzz93W9i.dpbs. Accessed: April 2024.
Shuford, W.D. and Gardali, T., eds. 2008. California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California. Studies of Western Birds 1. Western Field Ornithologists, Camarillo, California, and California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento.
Stebbins, RC. 2003. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, Third Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, MA and New York, NY.
Thomson, R.C., A.N. Wright, and H.B. Shaffer. 2016. California Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern. Co-published by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife and University of California Press. Oakland, California.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2010. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast (Version 2.0). U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). 2022. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer Research and Development Center. Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, Hanover, NH.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2006. Soil Survey of Mendocino County, Western Part, California.
In cooperation with U.C. Agricultural Experiment Station and U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2018. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the United States, Version 8.2. L.M. Vasilas, G.W. Hurt, and J.F.
Berkowitz (eds.). In cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. (USDA). 2024a. Official List of California Hydric Soils. Available online at:
https://www.nrcs.usda.gov/publications/query-by-state.html#reportref (USDA). 2024b. Climate Information for Mendocino County in the State of California. Available at:
http://www.wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed: April 2024.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024a. National Wetlands Inventory. Available at:
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/index.html. Most recently accessed: April 2024.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024b. Information for Planning and Consultation. Available online at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Most recently accessed: April 2024.
Biological Resources Report
May 2024
WRA, Inc.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024c. Threatened and Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report. Available at: https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/table/critical-habitat.html.
Most recently accessed: April 2024.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 2018. Fort Bragg, California 7.5-minute quadrangle topographic map.
Walsh, R.A. 1995. Deschampsia caespitosa. Fire Effects Information System [Online]. USDA Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station Fires Sciences Laboratory.
Western Bat Working Group (WBWG). 2024. Species Accounts. Available at:
http://www.wbwg.org/speciesinfo/species_accounts/species_accounts.html. Accessed:
April 2024.
WRA. 2005. Delineation of Potential Section 404 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Former Georgia Pacific Fort Bragg Sawmill, Fort Bragg, Mendocino County. December WRA. 2005. Biological Assessment Georgia Pacific Fort Bragg Sawmill, Fort Bragg. November WRA. 2009. Delineation of Potential Section 404 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Former Georgia Pacific Fort Bragg Sawmill, Fort Bragg, Mendocino County. July.
WRA. 2009. Delineation of Potential Section 404 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Former Georgia Pacific Fort Bragg Wood Products Facility, Fort Bragg, Mendocino County.
September.
WRA. 2010. South Fort Bragg Coastal Trail and Noyo Center Botanical Survey and Califiornia Coastal Act Wetland Delineation, Southern Section of the Georgia-Pacific Mill, Fort Bragg.
August.
WRA. 2013. Botanical and Natural Communities ESHA Survey, Fort Bragg Coastal Trail, Georgia Pacific Mill Site, Fort Bragg. August.
Appendix A
Figures
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\340000\340124\GIS\ArcMap\340124Base.aprx Layout Name:Location Sources: National Geographic, WRA | Prepared By: rochelle, 4/11/2024 Study Area
View Extent
Noyo Center for Marine Science
Fort Bragg, California
0 1 2
Miles
Figure 1. Study Area Regional Location Map
Fort Bragg
219
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\340000\340124\GIS\ArcMap\340124Base.aprx Layout Name: Soils Sources: Google Earth Imagery 2023, USDA NRCS SSURGO, WRA | Prepared By: rochelle, 4/11/2024 Noyo Center for Marine Science
Fort Bragg, California
0 50 100
US Feet
Figure 2. Soil Types within the Study Area
Study Area
Soil Map Units
219: Urban land
Sp02
Sp01
Sp04
Sp03
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\340000\340124\GIS\ArcMap\340124Base.aprx Layout Name: Land Cover Study Area - 3.94 ac.
Sample Points
Drainage Ditch (TOB) -
0.01 ac.
Non-ESHA Land Cover Types
Coyote Brush Scrub -
0.59 ac.
Developed - 0.56 ac.
Himalayan Blackberry
Scrub - 0.20 ac.
Non-Native Grassland -
2.02 ac.
Potential ESHA Land Cover
Types
Drainage Ditch (OHWM) -
0.01 ac.
Seasonal Wetland
(artificial) - 0.06 ac.
Tufted Hairgrass Meadow
- 0.50 ac.
Noyo Center for Marine Science
Fort Bragg, California
Sources: Google Earth Imagery 2023, WRA | Prepared By: rochelle, 5/9/2024 0 50 100
Feet
Figure 3. Land Cover Types
SW-1
SW-2 SW-3
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\340000\340124\GIS\ArcMap\340124Base.aprx Layout Name: Impacts Study Area - 3.94 ac.
Project Footprint
Drainage Ditch (TOB) -
0.01 ac.
Non-ESHA Land Cover Types
Coyote Brush Scrub -
0.59 ac.
Developed - 0.56 ac.
Himalayan Blackberry
Scrub - 0.20 ac.
Non-Native Grassland -
2.02 ac.
Potential ESHA Land Cover
Types
Drainage Ditch (OHWM) -
0.01 ac.
Seasonal Wetland
(artifical) - 0.06 ac.
Tufted Hairgrass Meadow
- 0.50 ac.
City LCP Setbacks for ESHA
100' Buffer
Noyo Center for Marine Science
Fort Bragg, California
Sources: Google Earth Imagery 2023, WRA | Prepared By: rochelle, 5/9/2024 0 50 100
Feet
Figure 4. Project Impacts
SW-1
SW-2 SW-3
City LCP Setbacks for ESHA: Acre
100' Buffer of Seasonal Wetlands 0.20
100' Buffer of Drainage Ditch & Seasonal Wetlands 0.06
100' Buffer of Tufted Hairgrass Meadow 0.10
Project Impacts
Figure 5. Alternatives
Figure 5. Alternatives
Figure 5. Alternatives
Appendix B
Observed Species List
Appendix B. Plant Species Observed within the Study Area on March 31, 2024 Appendix B | Observed Species List
May 2024
1 SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ORIGIN FORM RARITY
STATUS1
CAL-IPC
STATUS2
WETLAND
STATUS3
Achillea millefolium Yarrow native perennial herb - - FACU Anthoxanthum odoratum Sweet vernal grass
non-native
(invasive)
annual, perennial
grass - Moderate FACU
Bromus diandrus Ripgut brome
non-native
(invasive) annual grass - Moderate -
Callitriche sp. - - - - - -
Carduus pycnocephalus ssp.
pycnocephalus Italian thistle
non-native
(invasive) annual herb - Moderate -
Carpobrotus edulis Iceplant
non-native
(invasive) perennial herb - High -
Cortaderia jubata Andean pampas grass
non-native
(invasive) perennial grass - High FACU
Cotula coronopifolia Brass buttons
non-native
(invasive) perennial herb - Limited OBL
Cyperus eragrostis Tall cyperus native
perennial
grasslike herb - - FACW
Deschampsia cespitosa ssp.
holciformis Coastal tufted hair grass native perennial grass - - FACW Eriogonum latifolium Coast buckwheat native perennial herb - - - Eschscholzia californica California poppy native
annual, perennial
herb - - -
Festuca bromoides Brome fescue non-native annual grass - - FAC Festuca perennis Italian rye grass
non-native
(invasive)
annual, perennial
grass - Moderate FAC
Geranium dissectum Wild geranium
non-native
(invasive) annual herb - Limited -
Geranium molle Crane's bill geranium non-native
annual, perennial
herb - - -
Holcus lanatus Common velvetgrass
non-native
(invasive) perennial grass - Moderate FAC
Hordeum marinum ssp.
gussoneanum Mediterranean barley
non-native
(invasive) annual grass - Moderate FAC
Appendix B. Plant Species Observed within the Study Area on March 31, 2024 Appendix B | Observed Species List
May 2024
2 SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME ORIGIN FORM RARITY
STATUS1
CAL-IPC
STATUS2
WETLAND
STATUS3
Isolepis cernua Low bulrush native
annual grasslike
herb - - OBL
Juncus effusus ssp. pacificus Pacific rush native
perennial
grasslike herb - - FACW
Juncus patens Common rush native
perennial
grasslike herb - - FACW
Lotus corniculatus Bird's foot trefoil non-native perennial herb - - FAC Lupinus sp. - - - - - -
Lythrum hyssopifolia Hyssop loosestrife
non-native
(invasive)
annual, perennial
herb - Limited OBL
Medicago polymorpha Bur clover
non-native
(invasive) annual herb - Limited FACU
Mentha pulegium Pennyroyal
non-native
(invasive) perennial herb - Moderate OBL
Plantago coronopus Cut leaf plantain non-native annual herb - - FAC Raphanus sativus Wild radish
non-native
(invasive)
annual, biennial
herb - Limited -
Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry
non-native
(invasive) shrub - High FAC
Sisyrinchium bellum Blue eyed grass native perennial herb - - FACW Stellaria pallida Pale starwort non-native annual herb - - - Trifolium subterraneum Subterranean clover non-native annual herb - - - Vicia sativa Spring vetch non-native annual herb, vine - - UPL Note: All species identified using the Jepson eFlora [Jepson Flora Project (eds.) 2024]; nomenclature follows Jepson eFlora [Jepson Flora Project (eds.) 2024] or Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CNPS 2024a). Sp.: “species,” intended to indicate that the observer was confident in the identity of the genus but uncertain which species.
1 California Native Plant Society. 2024a. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition). Sacramento, California. Online at: http://rareplants.cnps.org/; most recently accessed: April 2024.
FE: Federal Endangered
FT: Federal Threatened
SE: State Endangered
ST: State Threatened
SR: State Rare
Rank 1A: Plants presumed extinct in California
Appendix B. Plant Species Observed within the Study Area on March 31, 2024 Appendix B | Observed Species List
May 2024
3 Rank 1B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere Rank 2: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere Rank 3: Plants about which we need more information – a review list Rank 4: Plants of limited distribution – a watch list
2 California Invasive Plant Council. 2024. California Invasive Plant Inventory Database. California Invasive Plant Council, Berkeley, CA. Online at: http://www.calipc.org/paf/; most recently accessed: April 2024.
High: Severe ecological impacts; high rates of dispersal and establishment; most are widely distributed ecologically.
Moderate: Substantial and apparent ecological impacts; moderate-high rates of dispersal, establishment dependent on disturbance; limitedmoderate distribution ecologically Limited: Minor or not well documented ecological impacts; low-moderate rate of invasiveness; limited distribution ecologically Assessed: Assessed by Cal-IPC and determined to not be an existing current threat 3 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2022. National Wetland Plant List, version 3.6. Online at: http://wetland-plants.sec.usace.army.mil/ OBL: Almost always found in wetlands
FACW: Usually found in wetlands
FAC: Equally found in wetlands and uplands
FACU: Usually not found in wetlands
UPL: Almost never found in wetlands
NL: Not listed, assumed almost never found in wetlands
NI: No information; not factored during wetland delineation Appendix C
Special-status Species Potentials Table
Page C-1
Appendix C. Potential for Special-status Species to Occur in the Study Area. List compiled from the CDFW BIOS database (CDFW 2024a), USFWS IPaC Report (USFWS 2024b), and CNPS Electronic Inventory (CNPS 2024a) searches. The Noyo Hill, Dutchmans Knoll, Inglenook, Fort Bragg, Mathison Peak, and Mendocino USGS 7.5' quadrangles were included in the search.
Table C-1. Potential Special-Status Plants
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN
THE STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Plants
pink sand-verbena
Abronia umbellata var.
breviflora
Rank 1B.1 Coastal dunes. Elevation ranges
from 0 to 35 feet (0 to 10
meters). Blooms Jun-Oct.
Unlikely. The Study Area does
not include dune habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Blasdale's bent grass
Agrostis blasdalei
Rank 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal
dunes, coastal prairie. Elevation
ranges from 0 to 490 feet (0 to
150 meters). Blooms May-Jul.
Unlikely. The Study Area is
relatively disturbed and is
dominated by dense nonnative grasses that likely
preclude this species.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
sea-watch
Angelica lucida
Rank 4.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal
dunes, coastal scrub, marshes
and swamps (coastal salt).
Elevation ranges from 0 to 490
feet (0 to 150 meters). Blooms
Apr-Sep.
Unlikely. The Study Area is
relatively disturbed. No
vegetation of any Angelica
species was observed during
the March 31 floristic survey.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
pygmy manzanita
Arctostaphylos
nummularia ssp.
mendocinoensis
Rank 1B.2 Closed-cone coniferous forest
(acidic sandy clay). Elevation
ranges from 295 to 655 feet (90
to 200 meters). Blooms Jan.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include acidic sandy
clay soils.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Humboldt County milkvetch
Astragalus agnicidus
SE, Rank
1B.1
Broadleafed upland forest, north
coast coniferous forest. Elevation
ranges from 395 to 2625 feet
(120 to 800 meters). Blooms
(Mar)Apr-Sep.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include forest
habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Page C-2
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN
THE STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Point Reyes blennosperma
Blennosperma nanum var.
robustum
SR, Rank
1B.2
Coastal prairie, coastal scrub.
Elevation ranges from 35 to 475
feet (10 to 145 meters). Blooms
Feb-Apr.
Unlikely. The Study Area is
relatively disturbed and
underlain by fill soils.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Bolander's reed grass
Calamagrostis bolanderi
Rank 4.2 Bogs and fens, broadleafed
upland forest, closed-cone
coniferous forest, coastal scrub,
marshes and swamps
(freshwater), meadows and seeps
(mesic), north coast coniferous
forest. Elevation ranges from 0 to
1495 feet (0 to 455 meters).
Blooms May-Aug.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include forest
habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Thurber's reed grass
Calamagrostis
crassiglumis
Rank 2B.1 Coastal scrub (mesic), marshes
and swamps (freshwater).
Elevation ranges from 35 to 195
feet (10 to 60 meters). Blooms
May-Aug.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include mesic scrub
or marsh habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Page C-3
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN
THE STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
coastal bluff morningglory
Calystegia purpurata ssp.
saxicola
Rank 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal
dunes, coastal scrub, north coast
coniferous forest. Elevation
ranges from 0 to 345 feet (0 to
105 meters). Blooms (Mar)AprSep.
Unlikely. The Study Area is
historically and
contemporarily disturbed. No
vegetation of Calystegia was
observed during the March 31
floristic survey. No specialstatus plants have been
documented in the Study
Area in previous assessments.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
California sedge
Carex californica
Rank 2B.2 Bogs and fens, closed-cone
coniferous forest, coastal prairie,
marshes and swamps (margins),
meadows and seeps. Elevation
ranges from 295 to 1100 feet (90
to 335 meters). Blooms May-Aug.
Unlikely. The Study Area does
not include mesic suitable
habitat for the species. No
special-status plants have
been documented in the
Study Area in previous
assessments. No vegetation
of Carex was observed during
the March 31 floristic survey.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
lagoon sedge
Carex lenticularis var.
limnophila
Rank 2B.2 Bogs and fens, marshes and
swamps, north coast coniferous
forest. Elevation ranges from 0 to
20 feet (0 to 6 meters). Blooms
Jun-Aug.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include forest or
marsh habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
livid sedge
Carex livida
Rank 2A Bogs and fens. Elevation ranges
from 0 to 0 feet (0 to 0 meters).
Blooms Jun.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include bogs or fens.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Lyngbye's sedge
Carex lyngbyei
Rank 2B.2 Marshes and swamps (brackish,
freshwater). Elevation ranges
from 0 to 35 feet (0 to 10
meters). Blooms Apr-Aug.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include marsh or
swamp habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Page C-4
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN
THE STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
deceiving sedge
Carex saliniformis
Rank 1B.2 Coastal prairie, coastal scrub,
marshes and swamps (coastal
salt), meadows and seeps.
Elevation ranges from 10 to 755
feet (3 to 230 meters). Blooms
(May)Jun(Jul).
Unlikely. The Study Area does
not include mesic suitable
habitat for the species. No
special-status plants have
been documented in the
Study Area in previous
assessments. No vegetation
of Carex was observed during
the March 31 floristic survey.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
green yellow sedge
Carex viridula ssp. viridula
Rank 2B.3 Bogs and fens, marshes and
swamps (freshwater), north coast
coniferous forest (mesic).
Elevation ranges from 0 to 5250
feet (0 to 1600 meters). Blooms
(Jun)Jul-Sep(Nov).
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include forest or
marsh habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
johnny-nip
Castilleja ambigua var.
ambigua
Rank 4.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal
prairie, coastal scrub, marshes
and swamps, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools (margins).
Elevation ranges from 0 to 1425
feet (0 to 435 meters). Blooms
Mar-Aug.
Moderate Potential. The
Study Area includes grassland
habitat and the species is
relatively adapted to
disturbance. There are
documented occurrences
within 5-miles of the Study
Area.
Not Observed. This
species was not
observed during the
March 31 floristic
survey. No further
recommendations.
Humboldt Bay owl'sclover
Castilleja ambigua var.
humboldtiensis
Rank 1B.2 Marshes and swamps (coastal
salt). Elevation ranges from 0 to
10 feet (0 to 3 meters). Blooms
Apr-Aug.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include marsh or
swamp habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Page C-5
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN
THE STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Monterey Coast
paintbrush
Castilleja latifolia
Rank 4.3 Cismontane woodland (openings),
closed-cone coniferous forest,
coastal dunes, coastal scrub.
Elevation ranges from 0 to 605
feet (0 to 185 meters). Blooms
Feb-Sep.
Unlikely. The Study Area does
not include dune or forest
habitat. The Study Area has
historic and contemporary
disturbance and is underlain
by fill soils. No vegetation of
Castilleja was observed
during the floristic survey on
March 31. No special-status
plants have been
documented in the Study
Area in previous assessments.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Oregon coast paintbrush
Castilleja litoralis
Rank 2B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal
dunes, coastal scrub. Elevation
ranges from 50 to 330 feet (15 to
100 meters). Blooms Jun.
Unlikely. The Study Area has
historic and contemporary
disturbance and is underlain
by fill soils. . No vegetation of
Castilleja was observed
during the floristic survey on
March 31. No special-status
plants have been
documented in the Study
Area in previous assessments.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Page C-6
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN
THE STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Mendocino Coast
paintbrush
Castilleja mendocinensis
Rank 1B.2 Closed-cone coniferous forest,
coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes,
coastal prairie, coastal scrub.
Elevation ranges from 0 to 525
feet (0 to 160 meters). Blooms
Apr-Aug.
Unlikely. The Study Area has
historic and contemporary
disturbance and is underlain
by fill soils. No vegetation of
Castilleja was observed
during the floristic survey on
March 31. No special-status
plants have been
documented in the Study
Area in previous assessments.
No special-status plants
have been documented
in the Study Area in
previous assessments.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
glory brush
Ceanothus gloriosus var.
exaltatus
Rank 4.3 Chaparral. Elevation ranges from
100 to 2000 feet (30 to 610
meters). Blooms Mar-Jun(Aug).
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include chaparral or
closed-cone pine forest
habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Point Reyes ceanothus
Ceanothus gloriosus var.
gloriosus
Rank 4.3 Closed-cone coniferous forest,
coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes,
coastal scrub. Elevation ranges
from 15 to 1705 feet (5 to 520
meters). Blooms Mar-May.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include chaparral or
closed-cone pine forest
habitat. The Study Area has
historic and contemporary
disturbance and is underlain
by fill soils.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Howell's spineflower
Chorizanthe howellii
FE, ST,
Rank 1B.2
Coastal dunes, coastal prairie,
coastal scrub. Elevation ranges
from 0 to 150 feet (0 to 45
meters). Blooms May-Jul.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include dune
habitat, has historic and
contemporary disturbance
and is underlain by fill soils.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Pacific golden saxifrage
Chrysosplenium
glechomifolium
Rank 4.3 North coast coniferous forest,
riparian forest. Elevation ranges
from 35 to 1770 feet (10 to 540
meters). Blooms Feb-Jun.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include forest
habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Page C-7
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN
THE STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Whitney's farewell-tospring
Clarkia amoena ssp.
whitneyi
Rank 1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub.
Elevation ranges from 35 to 330
feet (10 to 100 meters). Blooms
Jun-Aug.
No Potential. The Study Area
has historic and
contemporary disturbance
and is underlain by fill soils.
No vegetation of Clarkia was
observed during the floristic
survey on March 31. No
special-status plants have
been documented in the
Study Area in previous
assessments.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
round-headed collinsia
Collinsia corymbosa
Rank 1B.2 Coastal dunes. Elevation ranges
from 0 to 65 feet (0 to 20
meters). Blooms Apr-Jun.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include dune
habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Oregon goldthread
Coptis laciniata
Rank 4.2 Meadows and seeps, north coast
coniferous forest (streambanks).
Elevation ranges from 0 to 3280
feet (0 to 1000 meters). Blooms
(Feb)Mar-May(Sep-Nov).
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include forest
habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
bunchberry
Cornus unalaschkensis
Rank 2B.2 Bogs and fens, meadows and
seeps, north coast coniferous
forest. Elevation ranges from 195
to 6300 feet (60 to 1920 meters).
Blooms May-Jul.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include forest
habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Mendocino dodder
Cuscuta pacifica var.
papillata
Rank 1B.2 Coastal dunes (interdune
depressions). Elevation ranges
from 0 to 165 feet (0 to 50
meters). Blooms (Jun)Jul-Oct.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include coastal dune
habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Page C-8
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN
THE STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
California pitcherplant
Darlingtonia californica
Rank 4.2 Bogs and fens, meadows and
seeps. Elevation ranges from 0 to
8480 feet (0 to 2585 meters).
Blooms Apr-Aug.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include perennially
mesic habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
swamp harebell
Eastwoodiella californica
Rank 1B.2 Bogs and fens, closed-cone
coniferous forest, coastal prairie,
marshes and swamps
(freshwater), meadows and
seeps, north coast coniferous
forest. Elevation ranges from 5 to
1330 feet (1 to 405 meters).
Blooms Jun-Oct.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include perennially
mesic habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
supple daisy
Erigeron supplex
Rank 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal
prairie. Elevation ranges from 35
to 165 feet (10 to 50 meters).
Blooms May-Jul.
Unlikely. The Study Area has
historic and contemporary
disturbance and is underlain
by fill soils. No vegetation of
Erigeron was observed during
the floristic survey on March
31. No special-status plants
have been documented in the
Study Area in previous
assessments.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Page C-9
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN
THE STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
bluff wallflower
Erysimum concinnum
Rank 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal
dunes, coastal prairie. Elevation
ranges from 0 to 605 feet (0 to
185 meters). Blooms Feb-Jul.
Unlikely. The Study Area has
historic and contemporary
disturbance and is underlain
by fill soils. No vegetation of
Erysimum was observed
during the floristic survey on
March 31. No special-status
plants have been
documented in the Study
Area in previous assessments.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Menzies' wallflower
Erysimum menziesii
FE, SE,
Rank 1B.1
Coastal dunes. Elevation ranges
from 0 to 115 feet (0 to 35
meters). Blooms Mar-Sep.
Unlikely. The Study Area does
not include coastal dune
habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Pacific gilia
Gilia capitata ssp.
pacifica
Rank 1B.2 Chaparral (openings), coastal
bluff scrub, coastal prairie, valley
and foothill grassland. Elevation
ranges from 15 to 5465 feet (5 to
1665 meters). Blooms Apr-Aug.
Unlikely. The Study Area has
historic and contemporary
disturbance and is underlain
by fill soils. No vegetation of
Gilia was observed during the
floristic survey on March 31.
No special-status plants have
been documented in the
Study Area in previous
assessments.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
dark-eyed gilia
Gilia millefoliata
Rank 1B.2 Coastal dunes. Elevation ranges
from 5 to 100 feet (2 to 30
meters). Blooms Apr-Jul.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include coastal dune
habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
American glehnia
Glehnia littoralis ssp.
leiocarpa
Rank 4.2 Coastal dunes. Elevation ranges
from 0 to 65 feet (0 to 20
meters). Blooms May-Aug.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include coastal dune
habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Page C-10
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN
THE STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
congested-headed
hayfield tarplant
Hemizonia congesta ssp.
congesta
Rank 1B.2 Valley and foothill grassland.
Elevation ranges from 65 to 1835
feet (20 to 560 meters). Blooms
Apr-Nov.
No Potential. The Study Area
has historic and
contemporary disturbance
and is underlain by fill soils.
No vegetation of Hemizonia
was observed during the
floristic survey on March 31.
No special-status plants have
been documented in the
Study Area in previous
assessments.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Tracy's tarplant
Hemizonia congesta ssp.
tracyi
Rank 4.3 Coastal prairie, lower montane
coniferous forest, north coast
coniferous forest. Elevation
ranges from 395 to 3935 feet
(120 to 1200 meters). Blooms
(Mar-Apr)May-Oct.
No Potential. The Study Area
has historic and
contemporary disturbance
and is underlain by fill soils.
No vegetation of Hemizonia
was observed during the
floristic survey on March 31.
No special-status plants have
been documented in the
Study Area in previous
assessments.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Page C-11
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN
THE STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
short-leaved evax
Hesperevax sparsiflora
var. brevifolia
Rank 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub (sandy),
coastal dunes, coastal prairie.
Elevation ranges from 0 to 705
feet (0 to 215 meters). Blooms
Mar-Jun.
Unlikely. The Study Area has
historic and contemporary
disturbance and is underlain
by fill soils. No vegetation of
Hesperevax was observed
during the floristic survey on
March 31. No special-status
plants have been
documented in the Study
Area in previous assessments.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
pygmy cypress
Hesperocyparis pygmaea
Rank 1B.2 Closed-cone coniferous forest
(usually podzol-like soil).
Elevation ranges from 100 to
1970 feet (30 to 600 meters).
Blooms .
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include forest
habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Point Reyes horkelia
Horkelia marinensis
Rank 1B.2 Coastal dunes, coastal prairie,
coastal scrub. Elevation ranges
from 15 to 2475 feet (5 to 755
meters). Blooms May-Sep.
Unlikely. The Study Area has
historic and contemporary
disturbance and is underlain
by fill soils. No vegetation of
Horkelia was observed during
the floristic survey on March
31. No special-status plants
have been documented in the
Study Area in previous
assessments.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Page C-12
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN
THE STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
harlequin lotus
Hosackia gracilis
Rank 4.2 Broadleafed upland forest,
cismontane woodland, closedcone coniferous forest, coastal bluff scrub, coastal prairie,
coastal scrub, marshes and
swamps, meadows and seeps,
north coast coniferous forest,
valley and foothill grassland.
Elevation ranges from 0 to 2295
feet (0 to 700 meters). Blooms
Mar-Jul.
Moderate Potential. The
Study Area includes suitable
mesic habitat of this species;
additionally this species is
disturbance tolerant.
Not Observed. This
species was not
observed during the
March 31 floristic
survey. No further
recommendations.
coast iris
Iris longipetala
Rank 4.2 Coastal prairie, lower montane
coniferous forest, meadows and
seeps. Elevation ranges from 0 to
1970 feet (0 to 600 meters).
Blooms Mar-May(Jun).
No Potential. The Study Area
has historic and
contemporary disturbance
and is underlain by fill soils.
No vegetation of Iris was
observed during the floristic
survey on March 31. No
special-status plants have
been documented in the
Study Area in previous
assessments.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
hair-leaved rush
Juncus supiniformis
Rank 2B.2 Bogs and fens, marshes and
swamps (freshwater). Elevation
ranges from 65 to 330 feet (20 to
100 meters). Blooms AprMay(Jun-Jul).
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include perennially
mesic habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Page C-13
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN
THE STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Baker's goldfields
Lasthenia californica ssp.
bakeri
Rank 1B.2 Closed-cone coniferous forest
(openings), coastal scrub,
marshes and swamps, meadows
and seeps. Elevation ranges from
195 to 1705 feet (60 to 520
meters). Blooms Apr-Oct.
Unlikely. The Study Area does
not include mesic areas in
suitable habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
perennial goldfields
Lasthenia californica ssp.
macrantha
Rank 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal
dunes, coastal scrub. Elevation
ranges from 15 to 1705 feet (5 to
520 meters). Blooms Jan-Nov.
Unlikely. The Study Area has
historic and contemporary
disturbance and is underlain
by fill soils. No vegetation of
Lasthenia was observed
during the floristic survey on
March 31. No special-status
plants have been
documented in the Study
Area in previous assessments.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
marsh pea
Lathyrus palustris
Rank 2B.2 Bogs and fens, coastal prairie,
coastal scrub, lower montane
coniferous forest, marshes and
swamps, north coast coniferous
forest. Elevation ranges from 5 to
330 feet (1 to 100 meters).
Blooms Mar-Aug.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include mesic areas
in suitable habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
broad-lobed leptosiphon
Leptosiphon latisectus
Rank 4.3 Broadleafed upland forest,
cismontane woodland. Elevation
ranges from 560 to 4920 feet
(170 to 1500 meters). Blooms
Apr-Jun.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include forest or
woodland habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Page C-14
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN
THE STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
coast lily
Lilium maritimum
Rank 1B.1 Broadleafed upland forest,
closed-cone coniferous forest,
coastal prairie, coastal scrub,
marshes and swamps
(freshwater), north coast
coniferous forest. Elevation
ranges from 15 to 1560 feet (5 to
475 meters). Blooms May-Aug.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include mesic areas
in suitable habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
redwood lily
Lilium rubescens
Rank 4.2 Broadleafed upland forest,
chaparral, lower montane
coniferous forest, north coast
coniferous forest, upper montane
coniferous forest. Elevation
ranges from 100 to 6265 feet (30
to 1910 meters). Blooms
(Mar)Apr-Aug(Sep).
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include forest
habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
heart-leaved twayblade
Listera cordata
Rank 4.2 Bogs and fens, lower montane
coniferous forest, north coast
coniferous forest. Elevation
ranges from 15 to 4495 feet (5 to
1370 meters). Blooms Feb-Jul.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include forest
habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
running-pine
Lycopodium clavatum
Rank 4.1 Lower montane coniferous forest
(mesic), marshes and swamps,
north coast coniferous forest
(mesic). Elevation ranges from
150 to 4020 feet (45 to 1225
meters). Blooms Jun-Aug(Sep).
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include forest
habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Page C-15
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN
THE STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
northern microseris
Microseris borealis
Rank 2B.1 Bogs and fens, lower montane
coniferous forest, meadows and
seeps. Elevation ranges from
3280 to 6560 feet (1000 to 2000
meters). Blooms Jun-Sep.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include perennially
mesic or forest habitat and is
below the elevation range of
the species.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
leafy-stemmed mitrewort
Mitellastra caulescens
Rank 4.2 Broadleafed upland forest, lower
montane coniferous forest,
meadows and seeps, north coast
coniferous forest. Elevation
ranges from 15 to 5580 feet (5 to
1700 meters). Blooms (Mar)AprOct.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include forest
habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Wolf's evening-primrose
Oenothera wolfii
Rank 1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal
dunes, coastal prairie, lower
montane coniferous forest.
Elevation ranges from 10 to 2625
feet (3 to 800 meters). Blooms
May-Oct.
Unlikely. The Study Area has
historic and contemporary
disturbance and is underlain
by fill soils. No vegetation of
Oenothera was observed
during the floristic survey on
March 31. No special-status
plants have been
documented in the Study
Area in previous assessments.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
seacoast ragwort
Packera bolanderi var.
bolanderi
Rank 2B.2 Coastal scrub, north coast
coniferous forest. Elevation
ranges from 100 to 2135 feet (30
to 650 meters). Blooms (JanApr)May-Jul(Aug).
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include forest
habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Page C-16
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN
THE STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
North Coast phacelia
Phacelia insularis var.
continentis
Rank 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal
dunes. Elevation ranges from 35
to 560 feet (10 to 170 meters).
Blooms Mar-May.
Unlikely. The Study Area has
historic and contemporary
disturbance and is underlain
by fill soils. No vegetation of
Phacelia was observed during
the floristic survey on March
31. No special-status plants
have been documented in the
Study Area in previous
assessments.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
white-flowered rein
orchid
Piperia candida
Rank 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest, lower
montane coniferous forest, north
coast coniferous forest. Elevation
ranges from 100 to 4300 feet (30
to 1310 meters). Blooms (MarApr)May-Sep.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include forest
habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
California pinefoot
Pityopus californicus
Rank 4.2 Broadleafed upland forest, lower
montane coniferous forest, north
coast coniferous forest, upper
montane coniferous forest.
Elevation ranges from 50 to 7300
feet (15 to 2225 meters). Blooms
(Mar-Apr)May-Aug.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include forest
habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
nodding semaphore grass
Pleuropogon refractus
Rank 4.2 Lower montane coniferous forest,
meadows and seeps, north coast
coniferous forest, riparian forest.
Elevation ranges from 0 to 5250
feet (0 to 1600 meters). Blooms
(Feb-Mar)Apr-Aug.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include forest
habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Page C-17
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN
THE STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
dwarf alkali grass
Puccinellia pumila
Rank 2B.2 Marshes and swamps (coastal
salt). Elevation ranges from 5 to
35 feet (1 to 10 meters). Blooms
Jul.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include perennially
mesic habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
angel's hair lichen
Ramalina thrausta
Rank 2B.1 North coast coniferous forest.
Elevation ranges from 245 to
1410 feet (75 to 430 meters).
Blooms .
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include forest
habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
white beaked-rush
Rhynchospora alba
Rank 2B.2 Bogs and fens, marshes and
swamps (freshwater), meadows
and seeps. Elevation ranges from
195 to 6695 feet (60 to 2040
meters). Blooms Jun-Aug.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include perennially
mesic habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
round-headed beakedrush
Rhynchospora globularis
Rank 2B.1 Marshes and swamps
(freshwater). Elevation ranges
from 150 to 195 feet (45 to 60
meters). Blooms Jul-Aug.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include perennially
mesic habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
great burnet
Sanguisorba officinalis
Rank 2B.2 Bogs and fens, broadleafed
upland forest, marshes and
swamps, meadows and seeps,
north coast coniferous forest,
riparian forest. Elevation ranges
from 195 to 4595 feet (60 to 1400
meters). Blooms Jul-Oct.
Unlikely. The Study Area does
not include mesic areas in
typical habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Page C-18
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN
THE STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
maple-leaved
checkerbloom
Sidalcea malachroides
Rank 4.2 Broadleafed upland forest,
coastal prairie, coastal scrub,
north coast coniferous forest,
riparian woodland. Elevation
ranges from 0 to 2395 feet (0 to
730 meters). Blooms (Mar)AprAug.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include forest
habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
purple-stemmed
checkerbloom
Sidalcea malviflora ssp.
purpurea
Rank 1B.2 Broadleafed upland forest,
coastal prairie. Elevation ranges
from 50 to 280 feet (15 to 85
meters). Blooms May-Jun.
Unlikely. The Study Area has
historic and contemporary
disturbance and is underlain
by fill soils. No vegetation of
Sidalcea was observed during
the floristic survey on March
31. No special-status plants
have been documented in the
Study Area in previous
assessments.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
trifoliate laceflower
Tiarella trifoliata var.
trifoliata
Rank 3.2 Lower montane coniferous forest,
north coast coniferous forest.
Elevation ranges from 560 to
4920 feet (170 to 1500 meters).
Blooms (May)Jun-Aug.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include forest
habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Monterey clover
Trifolium trichocalyx
FE, SE,
Rank 1B.1
Closed-cone coniferous forest
(burned areas, openings, sandy).
Elevation ranges from 100 to
1000 feet (30 to 305 meters).
Blooms Apr-Jun.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include forest
habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
coastal triquetrella
Triquetrella californica
Rank 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal scrub.
Elevation ranges from 35 to 330
feet (10 to 100 meters). Blooms .
Unlikely. The Study Area does
not include rock outcrops.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Page C-19
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN
THE STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Methuselah's beard lichen
Usnea longissima
Rank 4.2 Broadleafed upland forest, north
coast coniferous forest. Elevation
ranges from 165 to 4790 feet (50
to 1460 meters). Blooms .
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include forest
habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
fringed false-hellebore
Veratrum fimbriatum
Rank 4.3 Bogs and fens, coastal scrub,
meadows and seeps, north coast
coniferous forest. Elevation
ranges from 10 to 985 feet (3 to
300 meters). Blooms Jul-Sep.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include perennially
mesic habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
Western dog violet
Viola adunca
No Rank;
this plant is
considered
an
important
larval food
plant for
the federal
endangered
Behrens
silver spot
butterfly.
Coastal prairie, coastal scrub,
coastal bluff scrub, lower
montane coniferous forest, North
Coast conifer forest, meadows.
Elevation ranges from 3 to 11,600
feet. Blooms Apr-Aug.
Unlikely. The Study Area has
historic and contemporary
disturbance and is underlain
by fill soils. No vegetation of
Viola was observed during
the floristic survey on March
31. No special-status plants
have been documented in the
Study Area in previous
assessments.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
alpine marsh violet
Viola palustris
Rank 2B.2 Bogs and fens (coastal), coastal
scrub (mesic). Elevation ranges
from 0 to 490 feet (0 to 150
meters). Blooms Mar-Aug.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include perennially
mesic habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations.
C-20
Table C-2. Potential for Special-status wildlife species to Occur in the Study Area.
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE
STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
WILDLIFE
Mammals
Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat
SSC, WBWG
High
Found in deserts, grasslands,
shrublands, woodlands, and forests.
Most common in open, forages along
river channels. Roost sites include
crevices in rocky outcrops and cliffs,
caves, mines, trees and various
manmade structures such as bridges,
barns, and buildings (including
occupied buildings). Roosts must
protect bats from high temperatures.
Very sensitive to disturbance of
roosting sites.
Unlikely. This species is not
known to occur along the coast.
Presumed Absent. No
further recommendations
for this species.
Aplodontia rufa nigra
Point Arena mountain
beaver
FE, SSC Coastal areas in the vicinity of Point
Arena with springs or seepages.
Utilizes north-facing slopes of ridges
and gullies with friable soils and
thickets of undergrowth.
No Potential. The Study Area is
outside the documented range
of the species.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
Arborimus pomo
Sonoma tree vole
SSC Occurs in old-growth and mature
coniferous forests, particularly bishop
pine forest, Douglas fir forest, coast
redwood forest, and montane mixed
conifer-hardwood. Recent
documentation from Bishop pine
stands.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include forest habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
Corynorhinus townsendii
pallescens
Pale big-eared bat
SSC Roosts in caves, lava tubes, and
abandoned mines. Feeds near
forested areas, gleaning insects off
plant leaves or in flight.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include suitable
roosting or foraging habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
C-21
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE
STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Corynorhinus townsendii
townsendii
Townsend's western bigeared bat
SSC, WBWG
High
Humid coastal regions of northern
and central California. Roost in
limestone caves, lava tubes, mines,
buildings etc. Will only roost in the
open, hanging from walls and
ceilings; suitable roosting site
limited. Extremely sensitive to
disturbance
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include suitable
roosting habitat. This species
may forage over the Study Area.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
Steller (=Northern) sea lion
Eumetopias jubatus
FD,
MMC_SSC
Breeds on Año Nuevo, San Miguel
and Farallon islands, Point Saint
George, and Sugarloaf. Hauls-out on
islands and rocks. Needs haul-out
and breeding sites with unrestricted
access to water, near aquatic food
supply and with no human
disturbance.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include beach or sea
rock habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
Pekania pennanti
fisher
FC, SSC Known from mature to old-growth
coniferous forest and deciduous
riparian areas with high percent
canopy closure. Uses cavities, snags,
logs, and rocky areas for cover and
denning. Requires large ranges of
contiguous mature, dense forest.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include suitable forest
habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
Taxidea taxus
American badger
SSC Most abundant in drier open stages
of most shrub, woodland, and
herbaceous vegetation types.
Requires friable soils and open,
uncultivated ground. Preys on
burrowing rodents.
Unlikely. While suitable habitat
is present, this species has not
been documented along the
Mendocino coast.
Presumed Absent. No
further recommendations
for this species.
Birds
C-22
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE
STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Accipiter gentilis
Northern goshawk
SSC Year-round resident in extensive
forests, primarily those with oldgrowth or otherwise mature stands of conifer or mixed coniferhardwood. Nests in large trees, with some vertical heterogeneity. Preys on
forest birds and mammals.
Unlikely. The Study Area does
not include older conifer forest
or large trees.
Presumed Absent. No
further recommendations
for this species.
Ammodramus savannarum
grasshopper sparrow
SSC, LR Summer resident. Breeds in open
grasslands in lowlands and foothills,
generally with low- to moderateheight grasses and scattered shrubs.
Well-hidden nests are placed on the
ground.
Moderate Potential. The Study
Area includes suitable nesting
and foraging habitat. The
species was observed near the
Study Area in 2019 (eBird 2024).
Presence Unknown.
Tree/vegetation removal
and initial ground
disturbance should occur
outside of nesting season,
or conduct preconstruction surveys and
avoid any active nests
found. See Section 6.0 for
details.
Aquila chrysaetos
golden eagle
BGEPA, SFP Occurs year-round in rolling foothills,
mountain areas, sage-juniper flats,
and deserts. Cliff-walled canyons
provide nesting habitat in most parts
of range; also nests in large trees
and on taller, manmade structures,
usually within otherwise open areas.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not provide large cliffs, and
lacks typical large, isolated nest
trees. This species does not
typically occur along the coast.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
Ardea alba
great egret
no status
(breeding
sites
protected by
CDFW)
Year-round resident. Nests colonially
or semi-colonially, usually in trees,
occasionally on the ground or
elevated platforms. Breeding sites
usually in close proximity to foraging
areas: marshes, lake margins, tidal
flats, and rivers. Forages primarily
on fishes and other aquatic prey,
also smaller terrestrial vertebrates.
Unlikely to Nest. The Study Area
is not within close proximity to
suitable waters to support a
breeding colony. This species
may forage in the Study Area.
Nests Presumed Absent.
No further
recommendations for this
species.
C-23
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE
STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Ardea herodias
great blue heron
LR (breeding
sites
protected by
CDFW)
Year-round resident. Nests colonially
or semi-colonially in tall trees and
cliffs, also sequested terrestrial
substrates. Breeding sites usually in
close proximity to foraging areas:
marshes, lake margins, tidal flats,
and rivers. Forages primarily on
fishes and other aquatic prey, also
smaller terrestrial vertebrates.
Unlikely to Nest. The Study Area
is not within close proximity to
suitable waters to support a
breeding colony. This species
may forage in the Study Area.
Nests Presumed Absent.
No further
recommendations for this
species.
Asio flammeus
short-eared owl
SSC Occurs year-round, but primarily as a
winter visitor; breeding very
restricted in most of California.
Found in open, treeless areas (e.g.,
marshes, grasslands) with elevated
sites for foraging perches and dense
herbaceous vegetation for roosting
and nesting. Preys mostly on small
mammals, particularly voles.
Unlikely. Species is a winter
visitor to California but has not
been observed on coast of
Mendocino County (ebird 2024)
and unlikely to nest in the Study
Area.
Presumed Absent. No
further recommendations
for this species.
Brachyramphus marmoratus
marbled murrelet
FT, SE Primarily coastal marine forager, but
breeds/nests in interior old-growth
coast redwood and/or Douglas fir
stands containing platform-like
branches along the coast. Migrates
daily from inland nests and roosts to
forage in the Pacific Ocean.
No Potential to Nest. The Study
Area does not include suitable
forest habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
Cerorhinca monocerata
Cassin’s auklet
SSC Pelagic species, nesting colonially in
burrows or crevices on offshore and
coastal islands and rocks.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include suitable
offshore islands or rocks.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
Chaetura vauxi
Vaux’s swift
SSC Summer resident, typically nesting
and roosting in the cavities of large,
hollowed-out trees. Forages high in
the air, generally over or near lakes
and rivers.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include large trees and
suitable foraging habitat is not
close.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
C-24
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE
STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Charadrius alexandrines
nivosus
western snowy plover
FT, SSC Federal listing applies only to the
Pacific coastal population. Yearround resident and winter visitor.
Occurs on sandy beaches, salt pond
levees, and the shores of large alkali
lakes. Nests on the ground, requiring
sandy, gravelly or friable soils.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not contain beaches or
other suitable barren habitat
near water.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
Circus cyaneus
northern harrier
SSC Year-round resident and winter
visitor. Found in open habitats
including grasslands, prairies,
marshes and agricultural areas.
Nests on the ground in dense
vegetation, typically near water or
otherwise moist areas. Preys on
small vertebrates.
Unlikely to Nest. The Study
Area is small and does not
include dense vegetation
suitable for this species to nest.
However, the species may
forage over the Study Area.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
Contopus cooperi
olive-sided flycatcher
SSC Summer resident. Typical breeding
habitat is montane coniferous
forests. At lower elevations, also
occurs in wooded canyons and mixed
forests and woodlands. Often
associated with forest edges.
Arboreal nest sites located well off
the ground.
Unlikely. The Study Area does
not include forest or woodland
habitat suitable for nesting; the
species may forage over the
Study Area.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
Diomedea albatrus
short-tailed albatross
FE Pelagic, nesting on remote Pacific
Ocean islands. Rare along the coast
of California coast. Feeds on small
animals and carrion on water’s
surface.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include seastacks.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
C-25
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE
STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Egretta thula
snowy egret
no status
(breeding
sites
protected by
CDFW)
Year-round resident. Nests
colonially, usually in trees, at times
in sequestered beds of dense
emergent vegetation (e.g., tules).
Rookery sites usually situated close
to foraging areas: marshes, tidalflats, streams, wet meadows, and borders of lakes.
Unlikely to Nest. The Study Area
is not within close proximity to
suitable waters to support a
breeding colony.
Presumed Absent. No
further recommendations
for this species.
Elanus leucurus
white-tailed kite
SFP Year-round resident in coastal and
valley lowlands with scattered trees
and large shrubs, including
grasslands, marshes and agricultural
areas. Nests in trees, of which the
type and setting are highly variable.
Preys on small mammals and other
vertebrates.
Unlikely to Nest. Forested areas
are absent. The species may be
observed foraging over the
Study Area.
Presumed Absent. No
further recommendations
for this species.
Falco peregrinus anatum
American peregrine falcon
SE, SFP Year-round resident and winter
visitor. Occurs near water, including
coastal areas, wetlands, lakes and
rivers. Usually nests on sheltered
cliffs or tall man-made structures.
Preys primarily on waterbirds.
Unlikely to Nest. The Study Area
does not include cliffs.
Individuals may forage over the
Study Area.
Presumed Absent. No
further recommendations
for this species.
Fratercula cirrhata
tufted puffin
SSC Pelagic and coastal marine. Nests
near or along the coast on islands,
islets, and (rarely) isolated mainland
cliffs. Requires sod or earth into
which the birds can burrow, or rocky
crevices where friable soil is absent.
Forages at sea, primarily for fish.
Unlikely. The Study Area does
not include coastal islands or
islets.
Presumed Absent. No
further recommendations
for this species.
Gavia immer
common loon
SSC Winter visitor to coastal marine,
estuarine, and some expansive
coastal freshwater habitats.
No Potential to Nest. The Study
Area does not include marine
habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
C-26
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE
STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
bald eagle
BGEPA, SE,
SFP
Occurs year-round in California, but
primarily a winter visitor; breeding
population is growing. Nests in large
trees in the vicinity of larger lakes,
reservoirs, and rivers. Wintering
habitat somewhat more variable but
usually features large concentrations
of waterfowl or fish.
Unlikely to Nest. The Study Area
does not include suitable trees
for nesting.
Presumed Absent. No
further recommendations
for this species.
Histrionicus histrionicus
harlequin duck
SSC Winter visitor to coastal habitats,
usually along turbulent, rocky shores.
Breeds in inland streams.
No Potential to Nest. The Study
Area does not include suitable
nesting habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
Icteria virens
yellow-breasted chat
SSC Summer resident, occurring in
riparian areas with an open canopy,
very dense understory, and trees for
song perches. Nests in thickets of
willow (Salix ssp.), blackberry (Rubus
spp.), and wild grape (Vitis
californicus).
No Potential to Nest. The Study
Area does not contain stands of
dense riparian understory
favored by this species for
nesting.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
Lanius ludovicianus
loggerhead shrike
SSC Year-round resident in open
woodland, grasslands, savannah,
and scrub. Prefers areas with sparse
shrubs, trees, posts, and other
suitable perches for foraging. Preys
upon large insects and small
vertebrates. Nests are wellconcealed in densely-foliaged shrubs or trees.
Unlikely to Nest. The Study
Area provides some suitable
habitat elements, i.e., open
areas with scattered shrubbery.
However, there are no
observations in the area (eBird
2024), and this usually
conspicuous species was not
observed during site visits.
Presumed Absent. No
further recommendations
for this species.
C-27
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE
STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Nycticorax nycticorax
black-crowned night heron
no status
(breeding
sites
protected by
CDFW)
Year-round resident. Nests
colonially, usually in trees but also in
patches of emergent vegetation.
Rookery sites are often on islands
and usually located adjacent to
foraging areas: margins of lakes and
bays.
No Potential to Nest. The Study
Area and adjacent lands lack
aquatic foraging habitat; no
indication of presence observed
during site visits.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
Oceanodroma homochroa
ashy storm-petrel
SSC Marine species; nests in rocky
crevices on offshore islands and
rocks from southern Mendocino
County to norther Baja California.
Forages over open ocean for
invertebrates and larval fishes.
Unlikely. The Study Area lacks
offshore islands and rock.
Presumed Absent. No
further recommendations
for this species.
Passerculus sandwichensis
alaudinus
Bryant’s savannah sparrow
SSC Year-round resident associated with
the coastal fog belt, primarily
between Humboldt and northern
Monterey Counties. Occupies low
tidally influenced habitats and
adjacent areas, including grasslands.
Also uses drier, more upland coastal
grasslands. Nests near the ground in
taller vegetation, including along
levees and canals.
Moderate Potential. The Study
Area is located along the coast
and includes suitable nesting
habitat. Individuals have been
observed nearby (eBird 2024).
Presence Unknown.
Tree/vegetation removal
and initial ground
disturbance should occur
outside of nesting season,
or conduct preconstruction surveys and
avoid any active nests
found. See Section 6.0 for
details.
Progne subis
purple martin
SSC, LR Summer resident. Inhabits
woodlands and low-elevation
coniferous forests. Nests in old
woodpecker cavities and man-made
structures (bridges, utility towers).
Nest is often located in tall, isolated
tree or snag.
Unlikely. The Study Area does
not include snags or suitable
nesting habitat.
Presumed Absent. No
further recommendations
for this species.
C-28
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE
STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Riparia riparia
bank swallow
ST Summer resident in riparian and
other lowland habitats near rivers,
lakes and the ocean in northern
California. Nests colonially in
excavated burrows on vertical cliffs
and bank cuts (natural and
manmade) with fine-textured soils.
Currently known to breed in Siskiyou,
Shasta, and Lassen Cos., portions of
the north coast, and along
Sacramento River from Shasta Co.
south to Yolo Co.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not includes vertical cliffs
of loam.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
Setophaga petechia
brewsteri
(Brewster’s) yellow warbler
SSC Summer resident throughout much of
California. Breeds in riparian
vegetation close to water, including
streams and wet meadows.
Microhabitat used for nesting is
variable, but dense willow growth is
typical. Occurs widely on migration.
Unlikely. The Study Area does
not contain perennial streams
and associated dense willow
cover favored by this species for
breeding. Individuals presumably
occur during migration.
Presumed Absent. No
further recommendations
for this species.
Strix occidentalis caurina
northern spotted owl
FT,ST, SSC Year-round resident in dense,
structurally complex forests,
primarily those with stands of
mature conifers. In Napa County,
uses both coniferous and mixed
(coniferous-hardwood) forests. Nests
on platform-like substrates in the
forest canopy, including in tree
cavities. Preys on mammals.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not contain dense/mature
coniferous or mixed forest.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
C-29
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE
STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Reptiles and Amphibians
Ascaphus truei
coastal tail frog
SSC Requires permanent streams of low
temperature in forested areas of high
annual precipitation (greater than 40
inches). Individuals have been
collected up to 40 feet from streams
during moist periods. The normal
home range has a long dimension
that rare exceeds 80 feet.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include suitable stream
habitat for this species.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
Dicamptodon ensatus
California giant salamander
SSC Occurs in the north-central Coast
Ranges. Moist coniferous and mixed
forests are typical habitat; also uses
woodland and chaparral. Adults are
terrestrial and fossorial, breeding in
cold, permanent or semi-permanent
streams. Larvae usually remain
aquatic for over a year.
Unlikely. The Study Area lacks
suitable aquatic habitat.
Presumed Absent. No
further recommendations
for this species.
Emys marmorata
western pond turtle
SSC, FP A thoroughly aquatic turtle of ponds,
marshes, rivers, streams and
irrigation ditches with aquatic
vegetation. Require basking sites
such as partially submerged logs,
vegetation mats, or open mud banks,
and suitable upland habitat (sandy
banks or grassy open fields) for egglaying.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include suitable
aquatic habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
Plethodon elongatus
Del Norte salamander
SSC Redwood and North Coast forests
with talus slopes and hardwood
understories.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include talus slopes
with conifer forest.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
C-30
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE
STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Rana aurora
northern red-legged frog
SSC Occurs in the vicinity of quiet,
permanent pools of streams,
marshes, and occasionally ponds.
Prefers shorelines with extensive
vegetation.
Unlikely. The Study Area does
not include suitable aquatic
habitat.
Presumed Absent. No
further recommendations
for this species.
Rana boylii
foothill yellow-legged frog
SSC Found in or near rocky streams in a
variety of habitats; highly aquatic.
Prefers partially-sunlit, shallow
streams and riffles with a rocky
substrate; requires at least some
cobble-sized substrate for egglaying. Needs at least 15 weeks to attain metamorphosis. Feeds on
invertebrates (aquatic and
terrestrial).
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include suitable
aquatic habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
FT, SSC Lowlands and foothills in or near
permanent sources of deep water
with dense emergent and/or
overhanging riparian vegetation.
Favors perennial to intermittent
ponds, marshes, and stream pools.
Requires 11 to 20 weeks of
continuous inundation for larval
development. Disperses through
upland habitats during and after
rains.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include suitable
aquatic habitat. This species
does not occur north of Navarro
River.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
Rhyacotriton variegatus
southern torrent salamander
SSC Known from cold, permanent seeps
and small streams with rocky
substrate in coast redwood-Douglas
fir forests.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include suitable
aquatic habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
C-31
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE
STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Taricha rivularis
red-bellied newt
SSC Inhabits coastal forests from
southern Sonoma County northward,
with an isolated population in Santa
Clara County. Redwood forest
provides typical habitat, though
other forest types (e.g., hardwood)
are also occupied. Adults are
terrestrial and fossorial. Breeding
occurs in streams, usually with
relatively strong flows.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include suitable
aquatic habitat.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
FISHES
Eucyclogobius newberryi
tidewater goby
FE, SSC Brackish water habitats along the
California coast from Agua Hedionda
Lagoon, San Diego County to the
mouth of the Smith River. Found in
shallow lagoons and lower stream
reaches. Requires fairly still but not
stagnant water and high oxygen
levels.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not contain brackish or
estuarine waters.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
Pacific lamprey
Entosphenus (=Lampetra)
tridentatus
SSC Spawns between March and July in
gravel bottomed streams in riffle
habitat. Larvae drift downstream to
areas of low velocity and fine
substrates and are relatively
immobile in the stream substrates.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not contain suitable
anadromous or estuarine waters.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
Lampetra ayresi
river lamprey
SSC Lower Sacramento River, San
Joaquin River and Russian River. May
occur in coastal streams north of San
Francisco Bay. Adults need clean,
gravelly riffles, Ammocoetes need
sandy backwaters or stream edges,
good water quality and temps less
than 25 degrees Celsius.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not contain suitable
anadromous or estuarine waters.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
C-32
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE
STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Lavinia symmetricus
navarroensis
Navarro roach
SSC Known from the Navarro River
watershed in predominantly warmer
waters. Presumably prefers pools,
but may favor stream margins when
pikeminnows are present. Feeds on
filamentous algae, crustaceans, and
insects.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not contain suitable
anadromous or estuarine waters.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
Lavinia symmetricus
parvipinnis
Gualala roach
SSC Known from the Gualala River
watershed in predominantly warmer
waters. Presumably prefers pools,
but may favor stream margins when
pikeminnows are present. Feeds on
filamentous algae, crustaceans, and
insects.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not contain suitable
anadromous or estuarine waters.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus
steelhead - northern CA DPS
FT Occurs from the Russian River south
to Soquel Creek and Pajaro River.
Also in San Francisco and San Pablo
Bay Basins. Adults migrate
upstream to spawn in cool, clear,
well-oxygenated streams. Juveniles
remain in fresh water for 1 or more
years before migrating downstream
to the ocean.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not contain suitable
anadromous or estuarine waters.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
Coho salmon - central CA
coast ESU
Oncorhynchus kisutch
FE, SE, NMFS Federal listing includes populations
between Punta Gorda and San
Lorenzo River. State listing includes
populations south of San Francisco
Bay only. Occurs inland and in
coastal marine waters. Requires
beds of loose, silt-free, coarse gravel
for spawning. Also needs cover, cool
water and sufficient dissolved
oxygen.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not contain suitable
anadromous or estuarine waters.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
C-33
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE
STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Chinook salmon - California
coastal ESU
FT This ESU includes all naturally
spawned populations of Chinook
salmon from rivers and streams
south of the Klamath River
(exclusive) to the Russian River
(inclusive). Adult numbers depend
on pool depth and volume, amount
of cover, and proximity to gravel.
Water temps >27 degrees C lethal to
adults.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not contain suitable
anadromous or estuarine waters.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
Invertebrates
western bumble bee
Bombus occidentalis
SC Formerly common throughout much
of western North America;
populations from southern British
Columbia to central California have
nearly disappeared (Hatfield 2015).
Occurs in a wide variety of habitat
types. Nests are constructed
annually in pre-existing cavities,
usually on the ground (e.g. mammal
burrows). Many plant species are
visited and pollinated.
Unlikely. All documented
occurrences in Mendocino
County are historic (1949 to
1984)(CDFW 2024a). The current
range of the species is identified
much further north and east
(CDFW 2023) and is likely
extirpated from coastal
Mendocino.
Presumed Absent. No
further recommendations
for this species.
monarch butterfly
Danaus plexippus
none (winter
roosts
protected by
CDFW), FC
Winter roost sites extend along the
coast from northern Mendocino to
Baja California, Mexico. Roosts
located in wind-protected tree
groves (eucalyptus, Monterey pine,
Monterey cypress), with nectar and
water sources nearby.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include known roosting
tree species.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
C-34
SPECIES STATUS* HABITAT REQUIREMENTS POTENTIAL TO OCCUR IN THE
STUDY AREA
RESULTS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
Lycaedes argyrognomon
lotis
lotis blue butterfly
FE Known from sphagnum-willow bogs
in transition zones between coastal
prairie with bishop pine and
Bolander pine forests. Harlequin lotus
(Hosackia gracilis) is suspected host
plants.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include larval food
plants or known habitat. The
species may forage in the Study
Area.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
Speyeria zerene behrensii
Behren’s silverspot butterfly
FE Inhabits coastal terrace prairie
habitat. Larval plant is dog violet
(Viola adunca). Known from six
historic locations from City of
Mendocino to Salt Point; currently
considered extant from Point Arena
south to Salt Point.
No Potential. The Study Area
does not include larval food
plants. The species may forage
in the Study Area.
Not Present. No further
recommendations for this
species.
C-35
*Key to status codes:
FC Federal Candidate for Listing
FE Federal Endangered
BGEPA Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act Species
FT Federal Threatened
SC (E/T) State Candidate for Listing (Endangered/Threatened) SE State Endangered
SFP State Fully Protected Animal
SR State Rare
SSC State Species of Special Concern
ST State Threatened
Rank 1A CNPS CRPR 1A: Plants presumed extinct in California Rank 1B CNPS CRPR 1B: Plants rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere Rank 2A CNPS CRPR 2A: Plants presumed extirpated in California, but more common elsewhere Rank 2B CNPS CRPR 2B: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common elsewhere Rank 3 CNPS CRPR 3: Plants about which CNPS needs more information (a review list) Rank 4 CNPS CRPR 4: Plants of limited distribution (a watch list) WBWG Western Bat Working Group High or Medium-high Priority Species Potential to Occur:
No Potential: Habitat on and adjacent to the site is clearly unsuitable for the species requirements (cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, plant community, site history, disturbance regime).
Unlikely: Few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or the majority of habitat on and adjacent to the site is unsuitable or of very poor quality. The species is not likely to be found on the site.
Moderate Potential: Some of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present, and/or only some of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is unsuitable. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the site.
High Potential: All of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or most of the habitat on or adjacent to the site is highly suitable. The species has a high probability of being found on the site.
Results and Recommendations:
Present: Species was observed on the site or has been recorded (i.e., CNDDB, other reports) on the site recently.
Assumed Present: Species is assumed to be present on-site based on the presence of key habitat components.
Assumed Present without Impact: Species assumed present; however, project activities will not have an impact on the species.
Presumed Absent: Species is presumed to not be present due to a lack of key habitat components.
Not Present: Species is considered not present due to a clear lack of any suitable habitat and/or local range limitations.
Not Observed: Species was not observed during dedicated/formal surveys.
Presence Unknown: Species has the potential to be present, but no dedicated surveys to determine absence/presence were performed.
Appendix D
Representative Photographs
Photo 1. Seasonal wetland (SW-1).
Photo 3. Seasonal wetland (SW-3).
Photo 2. Seasonal wetland (SW-2).
Photo 4. Coastal tufted hairgrass meadow.
Appendix D. Site Photographs 1
Photo 5. Coyote brush scrub.
Photo 7. Drainage ditch.
Photo 6. Non-native grassland.
Photo 8. Vegetation on the recently placed fill
pile in the west portion of the Study Area.
Appendix D. Site Photographs 2
Appendix E
Antecedent Precipitation Tool Analysis
Sep
2023
Oct
2023
Nov
2023
Dec
2023
Jan
2024
Feb
2024
Mar
2024
Apr
2024
May
2024
Jun
2024
Jul
2024
Aug
2024
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 Rainfall (Inches)
2024-03-30
2024-02-29
2024-01-30
Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network Daily Total
30-Day Rolling Total
30-Year Normal Range
30 Days Ending 30th %ile (in) 70th %ile (in) Observed (in) Wetness Condition Condition Value Month Weight Product 2024-03-30 2.897638 7.601969 8.614174 Wet 3 3 9
2024-02-29 4.398819 8.782677 14.448819 Wet 3 2 6
2024-01-30 5.346457 9.368898 10.492126 Wet 3 1 3
Result Wetter than Normal - 18
Coordinates 39.437819, -123.813722
Observation Date 2024-03-30
Elevation (ft) 61.627
Drought Index (PDSI) Mild wetness (2024-02)
WebWIMP H2O Balance Wet Season
Weather Station Name Coordinates Elevation (ft) Distance (mi) Elevation Weighted Days Normal Days Antecedent FT BRAGG 5 N 39.51, -123.7564 123.031 5.85 61.404 2.992 11011 75 FORT BRAGG 4.0 NNE 39.4985, -123.7854 84.974 1.738 38.057 0.848 77 8 FORT BRAGG 3.5 S 39.3914, -123.802 210.958 8.548 87.927 4.598 7 4 FORT BRAGG 4.5 S 39.3769, -123.801 190.945 9.499 67.914 4.92 34 0 CASPAR 1.4 ESE 39.361, -123.789 323.163 10.441 200.132 6.788 45 3 MENDOCINO 1.3 NNE 39.3257, -123.7942 323.163 12.893 200.132 8.382 12 0 WESTPORT 1.6 NNE 39.6567, -123.7698 722.113 10.161 599.082 10.66 8 0 ELK 1.8 NNE 39.1054, -123.7062 146.982 28.084 23.951 13.31 45 0 ALBION 4.0 SE 39.1878, -123.7096 636.155 22.402 513.124 21.576 6 0 STANDISH HICKEY SP 39.8778, -123.7275 853.018 25.459 729.987 30.041 81 0 LAYTONVILLE 1.1 SW 39.6724, -123.4898 1646.982 18.094 1523.951 35.717 2 0 UKIAH MUNI AP 39.1278, -123.2003 603.018 39.761 479.987 36.977 24 0 Appendix F
Wetland Data Forms
Project/Site Noyo Center Laboneatory County Mendocino Sampling Date 3/31/2024 State CA
City Fort Bragg
Sampling Point SP-01
Investigator(s) WRA, Inc., Rhiannon Korhummel Section,Township,Range Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.)coastal terrace Local Relief (concave, convex, none) concave Slope(%) 3 Subregion(LRR) LRR A Lat: Long: Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name Urban Land NWI classification n/a
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on-site typical for this time of year? Yes No Are any of the following significantly disturbed? Vegetation Soil Hydrology Are any of the following naturally problematic? Vegetation Soil Hydrology Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Sample point located in a topographic depression. Vegetation is dominated by non-native FAC species. Hydrology indicators observed.
Hydric soils are presumed due to presence of hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology along with topographic position. Climatic conditions are wetter than normal and hydrology indicators are considered naturally problematic.
1. 2.
3. 4.
1. 2.
3. 4.
1. Hordeum marinum
2. Holcus lanatus
3. Juncus patens
4. Festuca pratensis
5. Isolepis cernua
6. 7.
8. 1.
2. Tree Stratum Total Cover:
60 10
10 5
2 x FAC
FAC
FACW
FAC
OBL
Herb Stratum Total Cover: 87
Sapling/Shrub Stratum Total Cover:
Woody Vines Total Cover:
% Bare ground in herb stratum % cover of biotic crust
Number of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC?
1 Total number of dominant
species across all strata?
1 % of dominant species that
are OBL, FACW, or FAC?
100
OBL species x1
FACW species x2
FAC species x3
FACU species x4
UPL species x5
Column Totals
Prevalence Index = B/A =
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is </= 3.01
4 - Morphological adaptations1
(provide supporting data in remarks)
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation1 (explain)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Present ? Yes No
Remarks: Vegetation dominated by non-native facultative (FAC) plants. However, overall species are FAC or wetter.
Applicant/Owner Noyo Center for Marine Sciences
(If no, explain in remarks)
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sample point locations, transects, important features, etc.
VEGETATION (use scientific names)
Absolute
% cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
Dominance Test Worksheet
(A)
(B)
(A/B)
Prevalence Index Worksheet
(A) (B)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
Total % cover of: Multiply by:
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology
must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains Valleys and Coast 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1
Plot Size: 5'x5'
Plot Size: -
Plot Size:-
Plot Size:-
TREE STRATUM
WOODY VINES
HERB STRATUM
SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM
Wetland Determination Data Form - Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0-2
2-4
4-6
6+
10YR 2/1
2.5Y 4/1
7.5YR 5/4
5YR 3/4
2.5Y 3/1
100
80 10
10 100
sandy loam
sandy clay loam
rock
rock
sandy clay loam
rocks/sand of native soil
rocks/sand of native soil
refusal due to fill rocks
Type: rocks
Depth (inches): 6 inches Hydric Soil Present ? Yes No
Remarks: No indicators of hydric soils. Shovel refusal at 6 inches due to abundant rocks from fill soils. Soils are presumed hydric due to presence of hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology and topographic position which is likely to concentrate and hold precipitation and sheetflow.
Surface water present? Yes No Depth (inches): 2 inches
Water table present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present ? Yes No Describe recorded data (stream guage, monitoring well, aerial photos, etc.) if available.
Remarks:Primary indicator Surface Water up to 2 inches observed and algal matting observed in dried out areas. Secondary indicator FAC-Neutral Test (D5) is met.
SOIL Sampling Point SP-01
HYDROLOGY
Profile description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc1 Texture Remarks Matrix Redox Features
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA1)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8) 3
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except NW coast)
Salt Crust (B11)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR AA)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)(NW coast)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Raised Ant Mounds (D6)(LRR A)
Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Field Observations:
(includes capillary fringe)
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains Valleys and Coast 2 cm Muck (A10)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (explain in remarks)
Project/Site Noyo Center Laboneatory County Mendocino Sampling Date 3/31/2024 State CA
City Fort Bragg
Sampling Point SP-02
Investigator(s) WRA, Inc., Rhiannon Korhummel Section,Township,Range Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.)coastal terrace Local Relief (concave, convex, none) flat Slope(%) 3 Subregion(LRR) LRR A Lat: Long: Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name Urban Land NWI classification n/a
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on-site typical for this time of year? Yes No Are any of the following significantly disturbed? Vegetation Soil Hydrology Are any of the following naturally problematic? Vegetation Soil Hydrology Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Sample point located in uplands adjacent to a seasonal wetland. paired point with SP-02. Vegetation is dominated by non-native FAC species. Climatic conditions are considered wetter than normal and therefore hydrology is considered naturally problematic. No hydric soils observed and hydric soils are not presumed present as the local relief is unlikely to concentrate precipitation or sheetflow.
1. 2.
3. 4.
1. 2.
3. 4.
1. Hordeum marinum
2. Holcus lantatus
3. Festuca perennis
4. Geranium sp.
5. Bromus diandrus
6. Vicia sativa
7. Isolepis cernua
8. 1.
2. Tree Stratum Total Cover:
65 15
5 2
2 2
1 x FAC
FAC
FAC
?
UPL
FACU
OBL
Herb Stratum Total Cover: 92
Sapling/Shrub Stratum Total Cover:
Woody Vines Total Cover:
% Bare ground in herb stratum % cover of biotic crust
Number of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC?
1 Total number of dominant
species across all strata?
1 % of dominant species that
are OBL, FACW, or FAC?
100
OBL species x1
FACW species x2
FAC species x3
FACU species x4
UPL species x5
Column Totals
Prevalence Index = B/A =
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is </= 3.01
4 - Morphological adaptations1
(provide supporting data in remarks)
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation1 (explain)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Present ? Yes No
Remarks: Vegetation dominated by FAC non-native species.
Applicant/Owner Noyo Center for Marine Sciences
(If no, explain in remarks)
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sample point locations, transects, important features, etc.
VEGETATION (use scientific names)
Absolute
% cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
Dominance Test Worksheet
(A)
(B)
(A/B)
Prevalence Index Worksheet
(A) (B)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
Total % cover of: Multiply by:
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology
must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains Valleys and Coast 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1
Plot Size: 5'x5'
Plot Size: -
Plot Size:-
Plot Size:-
TREE STRATUM
WOODY VINES
HERB STRATUM
SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM
Wetland Determination Data Form - Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0-6 10YR 2/1 100 rocky
Type: rocks
Depth (inches): 6 inches Hydric Soil Present ? Yes No
Remarks: No indicators of hydric soils observed. Shovel refusal at 6-inches due to high amount of fill rocks. Soils are not presumed hydric as local relief is unlikely to collect precipitation or surface flow.
Surface water present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Water table present? Yes No Depth (inches): 5 inches
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): 4 inches
Wetland Hydrology Present ? Yes No
Describe recorded data (stream guage, monitoring well, aerial photos, etc.) if available.
Remarks:Primary indicator High Water Table and Saturation observed. Hydrology is presumed naturally problematic due to above normal rainfall and likely do not represent normal conditions.
SOIL Sampling Point SP-02
HYDROLOGY
Profile description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc1 Texture Remarks Matrix Redox Features
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA1)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8) 3
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except NW coast)
Salt Crust (B11)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR AA)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)(NW coast)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Raised Ant Mounds (D6)(LRR A)
Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Field Observations:
(includes capillary fringe)
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains Valleys and Coast 2 cm Muck (A10)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (explain in remarks)
Project/Site Noyo Center Laboneatory County Mendocino Sampling Date 3/31/2024 State CA
City Fort Bragg
Sampling Point SP-03
Investigator(s) WRA, Inc., Rhiannon Korhummel Section,Township,Range Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.)coastal terrace Local Relief (concave, convex, none) concave Slope(%) 3 Subregion(LRR) LRR A Lat: Long: Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name Urban Land NWI classification n/a
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on-site typical for this time of year? Yes No Are any of the following significantly disturbed? Vegetation Soil Hydrology Are any of the following naturally problematic? Vegetation Soil Hydrology Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Sample point located in a topographic depression. Vegetation dominated by OBL plants at low cover. Soils are presumed hydric due to presence of hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology and in topoographic position likely to concentrate precipitation and surface flow. Primary hydrology indicators observed. Climatic conditions are considred wetter than normal and hydrology is considered naturally problematic.
1. 2.
3. 4.
1. Rubus armeniacus
2. 3.
4. 1. Mentha pulegium
2. Lythrum hyssopifolia
3. 4.
5. 6.
7. 8.
1. 2.
Tree Stratum Total Cover:
5 x FAC
10 5
x
x
OBL
OBL
Herb Stratum Total Cover: 15
Sapling/Shrub Stratum Total Cover: 5
Woody Vines Total Cover:
% Bare ground in herb stratum % cover of biotic crust
Number of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC?
3 Total number of dominant
species across all strata?
3 % of dominant species that
are OBL, FACW, or FAC?
100
OBL species x1
FACW species x2
FAC species x3
FACU species x4
UPL species x5
Column Totals
Prevalence Index = B/A =
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is </= 3.01
4 - Morphological adaptations1
(provide supporting data in remarks)
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation1 (explain)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Present ? Yes No
Remarks: Vegetation dominated by obligate non-native wetland plants and facultative non-native shrub.
Applicant/Owner Noyo Center for Marine Sciences
(If no, explain in remarks)
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sample point locations, transects, important features, etc.
VEGETATION (use scientific names)
Absolute
% cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
Dominance Test Worksheet
(A)
(B)
(A/B)
Prevalence Index Worksheet
(A) (B)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
Total % cover of: Multiply by:
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology
must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains Valleys and Coast 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1
Plot Size: 5'x5'
Plot Size: 10'x10'
Plot Size:-
Plot Size:-
TREE STRATUM
WOODY VINES
HERB STRATUM
SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM
Wetland Determination Data Form - Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0-6 10YR 2/1 100
Type: compacted
Depth (inches): 6 inches Hydric Soil Present ? Yes No
Remarks: No hydric indicators observed and shovel refusal at 6-inches due to highly compacted soil. Soils presumed hydric due to presence of hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology along with topographic position likely to concentrate precipitation and surface flow.
Surface water present? Yes No Depth (inches): 4
Water table present? Yes No Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present ? Yes No Describe recorded data (stream guage, monitoring well, aerial photos, etc.) if available.
Remarks:Primary hydrology indicator Surface Water (A1) at a maximum depth of 4 inches observed. Additionally, algal growth on submerged vegetation observed (B4). Vegetation meets the secondary indicator FAC-Neutral Test (D5).
SOIL Sampling Point SP-03
HYDROLOGY
Profile description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc1 Texture Remarks Matrix Redox Features
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA1)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8) 3
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except NW coast)
Salt Crust (B11)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR AA)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)(NW coast)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Raised Ant Mounds (D6)(LRR A)
Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Field Observations:
(includes capillary fringe)
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains Valleys and Coast 2 cm Muck (A10)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (explain in remarks)
Project/Site Noyo Center Laboneatory County Mendocino Sampling Date 3/31/2024 State CA
City Fort Bragg
Sampling Point SP-04
Investigator(s) WRA, Inc., Rhiannon Korhummel Section,Township,Range Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.)coastal terrace Local Relief (concave, convex, none) flat Slope(%) 3 Subregion(LRR) LRR A Lat: Long: Datum: WGS 84
Soil Map Unit Name Urban Land NWI classification n/a
Are climatic/hydrologic conditions on-site typical for this time of year? Yes No Are any of the following significantly disturbed? Vegetation Soil Hydrology Are any of the following naturally problematic? Vegetation Soil Hydrology Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes No
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks: Sample point located in uplands adjacent to seasonal wetland. Vegetation dominated by non-native FAC species. No hydric soil indicator observed. Hydrology indicators observed and are considered naturally problematic due to wetter than normal climatic conditions.
1. 2.
3. 4.
1. Rubus armeniacus
2. 3.
4. 1. Holcus lanatus
2. Hordeum marinum
3. Geranium sp.
4. 5.
6. 7.
8. 1.
2. Tree Stratum Total Cover:
1 x FAC
50 5
1 x FAC
FAC
?
Herb Stratum Total Cover: 56
Sapling/Shrub Stratum Total Cover: 1
Woody Vines Total Cover:
% Bare ground in herb stratum % cover of biotic crust
Number of Dominant Species
that are OBL, FACW, or FAC?
2 Total number of dominant
species across all strata?
2 % of dominant species that
are OBL, FACW, or FAC?
100
OBL species x1
FACW species x2
FAC species x3
FACU species x4
UPL species x5
Column Totals
Prevalence Index = B/A =
2 - Dominance Test is >50%
3 - Prevalence Index is </= 3.01
4 - Morphological adaptations1
(provide supporting data in remarks)
Problematic hydrophytic vegetation1 (explain)
Hydrophytic
Vegetation Present ? Yes No
Remarks: Vegetation dominated by non-native FAC species.
Applicant/Owner Noyo Center for Marine Sciences
(If no, explain in remarks)
(If needed, explain any answers in remarks)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sample point locations, transects, important features, etc.
VEGETATION (use scientific names)
Absolute
% cover
Dominant
Species?
Indicator
Status
Dominance Test Worksheet
(A)
(B)
(A/B)
Prevalence Index Worksheet
(A) (B)
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators
Total % cover of: Multiply by:
1 Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology
must be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains Valleys and Coast 5 - Wetland Non-Vascular Plants 1
Plot Size: 5'x5'
Plot Size: 10'x10'
Plot Size:-
Plot Size:-
TREE STRATUM
WOODY VINES
HERB STRATUM
SAPLING/SHRUB STRATUM
Wetland Determination Data Form - Western Mountains, Valleys and Coast Region 1 - Rapid Test for Hydrophytic Vegetation
0-8 10YR 2/1 100 sandy loam
Type: rocks
Depth (inches): 8 Hydric Soil Present ? Yes No
Remarks: No indicators of hydric soil observed. Hydric soils are not presumed as the local relief is unlikely to concentrate rainfall or sheet flow.
Surface water present? Yes No Depth (inches): 1
Water table present? Yes No Depth (inches): 4
Saturation Present? Yes No Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present ? Yes No Describe recorded data (stream guage, monitoring well, aerial photos, etc.) if available.
Remarks:Primary hydrology indicators Surface Water at a maximum depth of 1-inch and High Water Table at 4-inches observed. Additionally, algal matting was present. Hydrology is presumed naturally problematic due to above normal rainfall and likely do not represent normal conditions.
SOIL Sampling Point SP-04
HYDROLOGY
Profile description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) Depth
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type1 Loc1 Texture Remarks Matrix Redox Features
1 Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3 :
Histosol (A1)
Histic Epipedon (A2)
Black Histic (A3)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)
Thick Dark Surface (A12)
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4)
Sandy Redox (S5)
Stripped Matrix (S6)
Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) (except MLRA1)
Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)
Depleted Matrix (F3)
Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Redox Depressions (F8) 3
Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
wetland hydrology must be present
unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Surface Water (A1)
High Water Table (A2)
Saturation (A3)
Water Marks (B1)
Sediment Deposits (B2)
Drift Deposits (B3)
Algal Mat or Crust (B4)
Iron Deposits (B5)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)
Sparsely Vegetated Concave Surface (B8)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9) (except NW coast)
Salt Crust (B11)
Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)
Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)
Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3)
Presence of Reduced Iron (C4)
Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6)
Stunted or Stressed Plants (D1)(LRR AA)
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Water-Stained Leaves (B9)(NW coast)
Drainage Patterns (B10)
Dry-Season Water Table (C2)
Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Geomorphic Position (D2)
Shallow Aquitard (D3)
FAC-Neutral Test (D5)
Raised Ant Mounds (D6)(LRR A)
Frost-Heave Hummocks (D7)
Field Observations:
(includes capillary fringe)
US Army Corps of Engineers Western Mountains Valleys and Coast 2 cm Muck (A10)
Red Parent Material (TF2)
Very Shallow Dark Surface (TF12)
Other (explain in remarks)
Appendix G
Statement of Qualifications
Appendix G – Statement of Qualifications
STATEMENT OF QUALIFICATIONS
WRA is an environmental consulting firm with over 30 years of experience conducting biological resources assessments, wetland delineations, protocol-level rare plant surveys, special-status wildlife assessments and species-specific surveys, as well as preparing applications with state and federal natural resource agencies for avoiding, minimizing, and mitigating impacts to sensitive natural resources. Other services and products with which WRA has expertise include preparation of CEQA/NEPA documents, habitat mitigation and monitoring plans, natural resource management plans, mitigation and conservation bank enabling instruments, grazing management plans, and wetland and other natural resources restoration plans.
Matt Richmond, BS, Principal with WRA, has over 20 years performing botanical assessments, rare plant surveys, environmentally sensitive habitat area surveys, wetland delineations, and vegetation mapping. He also has experience performing protocol-level surveys for California red-legged frog, Ridgeway’s rail, marbled murrelet, northern spotted owl, Point Arena mountain beaver, and Behren’s silverspot butterfly. His project focus is in conservation and mitigation banking, coastal development projects, vineyard development, and timber resources. Mr. Richmond regularly manages large-scale mitigation banking projects, as well as coastal development permits, coastal restoration projects, vineyard grading permits with a focus in Mendocino, Napa, Lake, and Sonoma counties. Mr. Richmond’s technical training includes the flora of Northern California, plant ecology, and forest ecology. Additionally, he has completed the 40- hour Corps wetland delineation training. Mr. Richmond received his Bachelor of Science in Biology from Humboldt State University.
Rhiannon Korhummel, BS, Senior Scientist with WRA, has 10 years of experience performing vegetation & habitat mapping, rare plant surveys, botanical assessments, vegetation change analysis, invasive plant species mapping, and wetland delineations. Her project focus is in cannabis development, CEQA projects for private and public development projects, coastal development permits, and habitat mitigation and monitoring plans, in Sonoma, Lake, Napa, and Mendocino counties. Ms. Korhummel’s technical training includes the flora of Northern California, agrostology, vegetation classification and mapping, aquatic botany, plant ecology, forest ecology, and soil science. Additionally, she has completed the 40-hour Corps wetland delineation course. Ms. Korhummel received her Bachelor of Science in Botany from Humboldt State University.